Re: [regext] [IANA #1278515] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search (rdap-extensions)

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Mon, 14 August 2023 07:34 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 966BCC151093 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 00:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PodKKntK-cMn for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 00:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.iit.cnr.it (mx5.iit.cnr.it [146.48.58.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF20C15107E for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 00:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE5DC01E0; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:34:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx5.iit.cnr.it
Received: from mx5.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihVOIu3aSNyv; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:34:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Relay-Autenticated: yes
Message-ID: <9c21c862-c7e9-0778-57f7-dbef692bc6c0@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:29:58 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, drafts-expert-review-comment@iana.org
Cc: shollenbeck@verisign.com, regext@ietf.org
References: <RT-Ticket-1278515@icann.org> <rt-5.0.3-924638-1691707067-665.1278515-9-0@icann.org> <rt-5.0.3-924638-1691707318-1206.1278515-9-0@icann.org> <CAAQiQRe_oh-WXLuPvEF=tOfASBE7j7j0ytFmuP1q6pCPByNvtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRe_oh-WXLuPvEF=tOfASBE7j7j0ytFmuP1q6pCPByNvtg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/g61ug_3jEdRNce8VaD0y1MtA3HI>
Subject: Re: [regext] [IANA #1278515] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search (rdap-extensions)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 07:34:18 -0000

Hi Andy,

please find my comments inline.

Il 11/08/2023 14:16, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
> I wish I had asked this during the WG discussion, but I do have a question.
>
> Section 12.2.1 paragraph 3 states:
>
> "The designated expert should prevent collisions and confirm that
> suitable documentation, as described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126], is
> available to ensure interoperability. References are not limited only
> to RFCs and simple definitions could be described in the registries
> themselves."
>
> Does this mean that no duplicates in the RDAP Reverse Search Mapping
> (section 12.2.4) are allowed?

[ML] What do you mean with "duplicates" ?

Under the conditions of sections 12.2.3.1. and 12.2.4.1. about the 
uniqueness of the registries entries , duplicated entries are clearly 
not possible.

Instead it's allowed that a single reverse property maps to more than 
one response fields.

In this case one entry in the "Reverse Search" registry will split into 
more entries in the "Reverse Search Mapping" registry depending on the 
varipus values of the "Property Path" field.

The classical example is the "fn" reverse search property that maps to 
multiple response fields based on the given contact format. But each of 
those response fields has the same meaning namely the contact full name.

The term "collisions" is used in that sentence to refer to the case 
where the DEs receive two registration requests for the same reverse 
search property that maps to two response fields having different meaning.

It's unliely to happen but we can't exclude it.

> If this is the case, that means a reverse search of "fn" will only
> apply to jCard and cannot be applied to JSContact or SimpleContact
> since the registration for "fn" is jCard specific. Is this
> intentional?

[ML] As pointed out above, the "fn" reverse search property will also 
apply  to other contact representations as the value of the "Property 
Path" field will be different according to the contact representation used.

The name of the reverse search property is just a conventional name that 
doesn't need to exactly match that of the response field it maps to. For 
example, "fn" can map to the jCard "fn" as well as to the property 
representing the contact full name in any other contact representation. 
The same goes for "email".

The name "fn" has been used for compatibility with the corresponding 
query parameter defined in RFC 9082 to search for entities.

> I see this in section 5:
>
> "Documents that deprecate or restructure RDAP responses such that a
> registered reverse search is no longer able to be used MUST either
> note that the relevant reverse search is no longer available (in the
> case of deprecation) or describe how to continue supporting the
> relevant search by adding another mapping for the reverse search
> property (in the case of restructuring)."
>
> It implies that duplicates are allowed, at least to me.

[ML]  See my previous comments.


Mario

> -andy
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 6:41 PM David Dong via RT
> <drafts-expert-review-comment@iana.org>  wrote:
>> Dear Andy and Scott (cc: regext WG),
>>
>> As the designated experts for the RDAP Extensions registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-23 for us? Please see:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/
>>
>> The due date is August 24th.
>>
>> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll make the registration at:
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/
>>
>> Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the first response we receive.
>>
>> With thanks,
>>
>> David Dong
>> IANA Services Sr. Specialist
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo