Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: (with COMMENT)

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline.

Il 07/09/2020 16:28, Robert Wilton via Datatracker ha scritto:
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this document.  I have two minor comments:
>
> 2.1.2.  Representing Subsetting Links
>
>             "value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com
>                       &fieldSet=afieldset",
>
> Should "afieldset" be "anotherfieldset"?

[ML] In web linking (RFC8288), the "value" field contains the context 
URI and the "target" field contains the target URI in a given relation 
with the context URI.

In Figure 2, the context URI is the current view of the results provided 
according to the current field set (i.e. "afieldset") while the target 
URI is an alternative view provided according another field set (i.e. 
"anotherieldset")

>
> 5.  Negative Answers
>
>     Each request including an empty or unsupported "fieldSet" value MUST
>     produce an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code.  Optionally, the
>     response MAY include additional information regarding the negative
>     answer in the HTTP entity body.
>
> Given the solution suggests that subsetting metadata may be included in
> positive responses, it might be helpful to also include similar metadata in
> negative responses.  I.e. rather than just stating that a fieldSet is invalid,
> perhaps there should be a recommendation that the response include the list of
> possible valid values that fieldSet may take?

[ML] I think this pertains to the server policy. RDAP (RFC7483) allows 
producers to provide consumers with additional information in error 
responses through "notices" and "notices" can include "links".

Definitively, I would keep the fully compliance with the error response 
structure defined in RFC7483.


Looking forward to your reply to my comments.

Best,

Mario

>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo