Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging

[Tom Harrison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mario,

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:30:41PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 02/03/2020 00:49, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> Some questions/comments on section 2.4.2 ("Paging Responses to POST
>> Requests"):
>> 
>>   - 'Therefore, an RDAP response element which is meant to represent
>>     the pagination information should also consider the POST method':
>>     does this mean that even for requests submitted using the GET
>>     method, server implementers may respond with the "cursors" element
>>     in the "paging_metadata" section?
>> 
>>   - 'As a consequence, the "paging_metadata" element MUST include an
>>     additional property, alternate to "links", that contains the cursor
>>     values used for pagination': does this mean that the response MUST
>>     include either "links" or "cursors", but not both?
> 
> I think the two points above are related.
> 
> The basic concept is that "links" must be provided when GET is used
> while "cursors" must be provided when POST is used instead and both
> "links" and "cursors" must not be included in the response.
> 
> I will rearrange the sentence to clarify it.

If it's not open to a server that receives a GET request to return the
'cursors' element, and no POST search requests are defined in any
current RDAP documents, then I think it would be better to omit
section 2.4.2 from the document.  This is mainly because the lack of
any current POST search requests makes it difficult to evaluate the
approach.  If a later document defines a POST search request, then the
appropriate sorting/paging changes could be defined there.  Having
said that, if this section is retained, your suggested changes sound
good.

> Please let me know if all the responses sound good for you so I can
> go ahead and post the new version.

Putting aside the issue of whether to omit section 2.4.2, all of the
responses sound good to me, thanks.

-Tom