Re: [regext] rdap mobile app avail

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Aug 2019, at 4:11, Marc Groeneweg wrote:

> All,
>
> Due to the release of the mobile app of Marc, Blanchet we saw we 
> differ in interpretation of some fields we have in our RDAP 
> implementation (for .politie and .amsterdam).
> Feedback from my development on the issues given Marc is that they 
> have chosen for a direction, that is at least now not compliant with 
> what the mobile app aspects.

well the important point here is not what the server or a client expects 
as of today. But what is the right thing to do and then fix whatever 
side.

To me, this is « normal »: we have collectively spent years in 
developing the RDAP specs. And now an important market for it (domains) 
is deploying like crazy with a deadline of last monday. As any standard, 
there are holes, incomplete details, ambiguity, errors, … Right now, 
AFAIK, the specs are pretty good, just some ambiguity could be relieved 
by some additional text. Last IETF, we had that conversation about 
making new version of the spec based on the deployment experience. This 
is about it.

let’s find the right answer and fix whatever implementation.

Marc.

PS. will followup on a separate email for the null vs "" issue.
>
> They are frustrated about this, since they have had an extensive 
> period behind them with working on the specifications and building a 
> sound RDAP implementation, that also is meant for .nl later this year. 
> Intensive contact with ICANN resulted only in 'Sorry we don't know' 
> and 'We don't have sufficient resources to give an answer now.'.
>
> So, we have our implementation live! But how can we make sure (if not 
> ICANN but at least the community) what compliancy means... (e.g. we 
> return a null when we don't have a value and "" when we have an empty 
> string value. The mobile app wants "" in all empty situations... Just 
> an interpretation?).


>
> I do not have the answers yet. Some of the points Marc gave us (in 
> private mail exchange, for which I am grateful) will be solved. But 
> that's not the point really.
>
> Hope to hear from you all :-).
>
> Best regards,
> Marc Groeneweg