Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions
> Approach Analysis v2)
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
> links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I invite you to consider that, currently, rdap-reverse-search and, 
> potentially,
> three other RDAP-related docs are blocked waiting for the end of this
> discussion.

[SAH] There's no reason for the documents to be blocked if you adopt the 
practice described in 9083. Look at Section 2.1 (Naming):

"Servers that insert such unspecified members into JSON responses SHOULD have 
member names prefixed with a short identifier followed by an underscore 
followed by a meaningful name"

We need an identifier for "unspecified members" (extension elements) that's to 
be used as a prefix. Further:

"If The Registry of the Moon desires to express information not found in this 
specification, it might select "lunarNIC" as its identifying prefix and 
insert, as an example, the member named "lunarNIC_beforeOneSmallStep" to 
signify registrations occurring before the first moon landing and the member 
named "lunarNIC_harshMistressNotes" that contains other descriptive text."

This example shows the identifying prefix being used in two examples. This 
begs the question: "What is registered with IANA and returned in the 
rdapConformance data structure?". Section 4.1 (RDAP Conformance) has the 
answer:

"When custom JSON values are inserted into responses, conformance to those 
custom specifications MUST be indicated by including a unique string literal 
value registered in the IANA RDAP Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480]. 
For example, if the fictional Registry of the Moon wants to signify that their 
JSON responses are conformant with their registered extensions, the string 
used might be "lunarNIC_level_0"."

This unambiguously tells us that the value registered with IANA is included in 
the rdapConformance data structure. If you consider the text from Section 2.1, 
the only thing that make sense is if these identifiers are one and the same. 
That's why I'm saying that the example in 4.1 is incorrect and needs to be 
fixed. It should be "lunarNIC" to be consistent with Section 2.1 such that the 
identifier used with "unspecified members" is the same identifier that's 
returned in the rdapConformance data structure and the same identifier that's 
registered with IANA.

> In addition, it seems to me more logical, first, to decide how RDAP 
> exentions
> must be treated and, then, correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with what
> decided.

[SAH] 9083 already describes how extensions must be treated. If there's 
anything unclear about that description, that lack of clarity should be 
addressed first. If the WG wants to *change* that description, that's a 
different discussion.

Scott