[regext] Technical review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-00

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Wed, 27 February 2019 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B16130FC5 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:12:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id siEhyVCBEyku for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:11:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1894130EFE for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72223B80492 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:11:55 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HTmSHvWJexm for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:11:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E9D1B803C6 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:11:53 +0100 (CET)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.iit.cnr.it 0E9D1B803C6
Authentication-Results: smtp.iit.cnr.it; dmarc=none header.from=iit.cnr.it
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <6fa69901-aaab-88f1-7bbc-ee58b004f55b@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:11:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A38B3DEBF7ED41D94504A786"
Content-Language: it
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Za-bHGWFpTkbZ1vN0rEFm6DQQb4>
Subject: [regext] Technical review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-00
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:12:01 -0000

Hi all,

in preparation for the discussion about 
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-00 at IETF104, I would like to 
invite the WG members to approach its technical review. Here in the 
following the issues I consider mostly significant:

1) Whether the WG substantially agrees about the proposed approach in 
order to provide sorting, paging and counting capabilities in RDAP.

2) Whether the new query parameters described in the draft are 
considered appropriate.

3) Which sorting properties should be defined by default.

4) Whether the sorting and paging information should be provided by an 
RDAP server in two metadata elements and, if so, which should be their 
structure.

5) Whether the metadata elements described in this specification should 
be included in a more general metadata section together with other 
contents (e.g rate limits, information about the server,  the request, 
the response).

6) Whether this specification should define a unique pagination method 
or should permit both offset and cursor pagination and let RDAP 
providers to implement the appropriate method according to their needs, 
the user access levels, the submitted queries.

7) Whether the WG agrees about the contents of the "Implementation 
Considerations" section with regards to the implications for both 
Relational and no-SQL DBMSs. *
*

*
*

Any feedback will be very appreciated.

Regards,

mario

**

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Servizi Internet e Sviluppo Tecnologico
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
E-Mail:mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo