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

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

thanks a loto for your review. My comments are inline.

Il 07/09/2020 23:05, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker ha scritto:
> Murray Kucherawy 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Where is "AvailableFieldSet[]" defined?

[ML] It is defined after "Members are:".  If you think it could be 
better, I can replace that sentence with "The AvailableFieldSet object 
includes the following members:".

Does it works for you?

> I get a Permission Denied error when I click on the link for [REST].  Should it be updated?

[ML] Ops! I replace it with 
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf 


> I have the same question Roman does about Section 2.1.

[ML] I think that we don't need to clarify that servers MUST not return 
more than one default field set because this is implicitly stated by the 
the meaning of the word "default" that is "a selection automatically 
used by a program in the absence of a choice made by the user".

>
> I've tried several times, but I can't understand what Section 3 is trying to tell me.

[ML] As RDAP objects include relationships with other objects, such 
related objects (defined as "second level objects" in Section 3) can be 
returned in different ways when a given field set is applied to the 
parent obejcts.

Let me give you an example taking into account the domain object class. 
An RDAP domain object (RFC7483) can generally include relationships with 
entities (one-to-many), nameservers (one-to-many) and networks 
(one-to-one) .  A "brief" field set for domains could provide the 
information about the related objects varying from returning no 
information to returning the object in a given field set as in the 
following:

- no entity, no nameserver, no network

- entities in "id" field set, no nameserver, no network

- no entity, nameservers in "id" field set , no network

- ....

- entities in "id" field set, nameservers in "id" field set, network in 
"id" field set

- entities in "brief" field set, no nameserver, no network

-.....

Definitively, the field set applied to a second level object may not 
strictly be the same applied to its parent object.


Looking forward for you reply to my comments.

Best,

Mario

>
>
-- 
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