Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response

Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com> Mon, 27 April 2020 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pm@dotandco.com>
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 167FF3A11D6 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dotandco.com header.b=FdMLcsVd; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=CcrvFLLZ
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IsVH74llWWFI for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAD8E3A11D2 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64585C00E9; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap22 ([10.202.2.72]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:13:48 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dotandco.com; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=+ssHrpCXA92oPFCk+t4JJTvD88ent5l YMb/IxG7JBFU=; b=FdMLcsVdHeH++/nF/W+jLuEGZE6oUu1//BNTAOnhOMP+x5l HOiEZx6r7ywNYSgY2tZkj7/b6VZfmJHBWn7IS/aWgj2NqT6OK+rvE1k2w9H6pF5U G40HzxWDVG7tEco9xjnlBx7ISyJtP9ow5D/tGsHUIQAlVnGb464JfRnwNvhggYpw AzoZUGVzsX9hkxWYAUQPPmZjCmhsFFUvHlbBQsMgNaq35hTSNAF10lCGzFWC5P50 qqIJUigzkEKd/2o2UUnQa5lRTsC2ktBkFRUSU+/L0dpEa67AphDychvlQBGaPgxN KAt3F5jiuq0qyvx4CeYpFi3hNDSBeHcpeMAkmiQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=+ssHrp CXA92oPFCk+t4JJTvD88ent5lYMb/IxG7JBFU=; b=CcrvFLLZCc0CY8kfXDKZjB PJ0Z8Ei9Ic3NLsUyvW/SdwEaHIqPK91eb9CP6XigN5cVjNkrIdH4cw1MQy8bpuJr 3BYo6I94EkI/o+6vx38XXm02mfxn6c1Vvp4jXRdZ5wGfBlK4Ikdzwt51GEeonwVr l5CypuxwzHNUI5+N7GhtBF8Vowef46xmqCfglmTajxh35UlfHuayRuWj3Rgr/+Ed X5Xv1UcN4ncJhQiBrXe8yraLj6K2vRcH01/TJHZUZqVGWEtrhlEG1Hhj0OCe8QbT FlJB/MhujbN9E8UBYbgxIg/XmqnFSNF7GMJjg1bFVUE8E8IzK9E8oVQKko8Vz6NA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:zBKnXuylb4cqUJlI1K-cNVcccuuGKkyun61dHl7tfeBbxzUrf--VG2zoZ-0>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrheelgddutdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfrrght rhhitghkucfovghviigvkhdfuceophhmseguohhtrghnuggtohdrtghomheqnecuvehluh hsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhmseguohhtrghn uggtohdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:zBKnXuiiUDjxFz7EYVR7lLvvz_vIj7HsFMMomFuQqVpbmUWuLTwifg> <xmx:zBKnXrW5PIyK3NPyoI8BMUxWikpSDzD7_uLJDQLYTH0rHU3ur_a8Cw> <xmx:zBKnXo25jnx3ub2gZFsSg4GlL6JCIOPe6HkBtT7VosuF-zm_OTINgA> <xmx:zBKnXj8VMz6sA_yFcrdHUeSiCysjT__7-kwQVuhs5ghEVgByxbH__w>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id D51116680073; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-351-g9981f4f-fmstable-20200421v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <f935c82b-4402-4738-ab4b-b56590c7d244@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea01e595-600d-e033-a52e-13aee980ec8b@iit.cnr.it>
References: <CF2EE8CE-DB07-4AFF-84D0-B80BA5E76D39@antoin.nl> <b79a4641-bade-4901-b3f0-bb7decbdb41e@www.fastmail.com> <d21468cb-4627-48ee-8b0b-74561a144bb1@www.fastmail.com> <ea01e595-600d-e033-a52e-13aee980ec8b@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:13:27 -0500
From: "Patrick Mevzek" <pm@dotandco.com>
To: "Mario Loffredo" <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>, regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/qXg6o9W8A97SnJBGBRmDvo-0Q9o>
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 27 Apr 2020 17:13:54 -0000

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 11:46, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 27/04/2020 08:04, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
> > Also:
> > couldn't each fieldset have a list of jsonPath elements (similar to what is done in
> > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging)
> > to properly list the fields concerned?
> I dropped this solution because it seemed to me conceptually valid but 
> very inefficient.

Ok, I see.

> > TBH, I am not sure to understand:
> > - why there are multiple links elements (the example given shows only one, what would be other ones?)
> The figure is uncorrect. I missed to fix this issue in the last version. 
> There are multiple field sets but each field set includes a single link 
> because each field set is an alternative view of the results provided 
> according to the current field set.

Great, that was my understanding too.

> > - why value there is different from href (and hence why value is needed at all),
> > why is the current fieldSet the "context URI" of any other fieldset used for same query?
> >
> > RFC8288 defines the context URI to be, for HTML serialization:
> > "The context of the
> >     link is the URI associated with the entire HTML document. "
> 
> The use of both the "value" and the "href" JSON values is compliant to 
> what is shown in RFC7483. The context is the URI of the current view of 
> a resource (i.e. the collection of objects returned according to the 
> current fiel set) while the target is the URI of an alternative view of 
> the same resource (i.e. the collection of objects provided according 
> another field set).

Ok. Maybe put that in the draft (value = current document, href = other document with other fieldset applied)>
 
> > There is no real explanation of the context for RDAP, but based on that maybe
> > it should be a link to the same query with fieldSet "full"?
> 
> I think that we need to agree about the meaning of "context" in RDAP. It 

Yes, I need this point should be explained better in rfc7483bis,
hoping that it could be considered as a clarification/correction point.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  pm@dotandco.com