Re: [regext] jCard fix/replacement discussion
Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Tue, 26 March 2019 17:11 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 E40DD120423 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 A_7YM_N51M11 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx3.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9581E1203A0 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5BA600611; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:11:36 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx3.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx3.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQFoM5bS52-G; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:11:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CEBC6002E7; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:11:33 +0100 (CET)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.iit.cnr.it 5CEBC6002E7
Authentication-Results: smtp.iit.cnr.it; dmarc=none header.from=iit.cnr.it
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>
References: <CAAQiQRf4pBJvVpsTAnDdf_yn05HbPoXXgPXw0BScTU9hMmMNRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <609937ad-845b-297a-77e1-a0161715fe3e@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:11:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRf4pBJvVpsTAnDdf_yn05HbPoXXgPXw0BScTU9hMmMNRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: it
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/t9UPHi-h4rSEzEAv55hhsuqCiGY>
Subject: Re: [regext] jCard fix/replacement discussion
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:11:44 -0000
Hi Andy, I provide my comments below. First of all, I would like to clarify that, as a Java developer, I found jCard more difficult to serialize/deserialize rather than other plain JSON objects but not impossible. Anyway, I would be happy to contribute to the definition of a more efficient representation of an RDAP contact. Il 26/03/2019 10:22, Andrew Newton ha scritto: > All, > > During the meeting yesterday I stated that I would send my notes on > jCard to this list to facilitate discussion. Your comments are > encouraged. > > The following items are comments and observations I have heard from > various people, etc. > > 1. Requirements for contact information > > a. There is a need to represent contact information in multiple > languages. This is a separate requirement from tagging the language of > the contact. In other words, it should be possible to have the contact > given in a local language and given in another language. It is my > understanding that jCard supports this. I agree. This distinction may reflect, for example, that existing in EPP between international and local postal info. > b. There should be a way to clearly specify the ISO-3166-1 country > code of a contact. It is my understanding that jCard does not support > this. I agree. While a country name can be different according to the given language, the country code remains the same and is universally known. > > 2. Issues with jCard > > a. Is fn always required in jCard? There is confusion on this point. In my opinion, YES. Otherwise, how would it be possible to represent both non-individuals' names and unstructured names? How would it be possible to keep consistency with "entityFn" query path? > > b. jCard allows for both structured and unstructured addresses, and > this causes quite a lot of problems with clients and leads to many > variations by servers. I don't think we can automatically exclude the presence of unstructured addresses so how about representing them by a "formatted address" property instead of using the "label"parameter? > c. If we moved away from jCard, how does that transition work? Deprecation should provide backward compatibility for a period of time. Therefore, I think the best way to address transition is to treat the new contact representation as a response extension. > > 3. JSContact - based on the DISPATCH meeting on Monday, it is unclear > if JSContact will be moving forward in the IETF. My humble opinion is that, if we agree on replacing jCard, we should do that ourselves rather than look at the DISPATCH JSContact. I attended the DISPATCH session and I had the same your impression. In addition, as I pointed out in a previous mail, I see some drawbacks in that proposal. For example, the requirement of uniquely identifying a JSContact across all JSContact objects by a UUID seems to me impracticable in the context of registration data. And two more things: 1) we should keep the jCard capability of expressing a preferred item in a collection of items modelling the same information (e.g. a list of emails) unless we agree to identify the first item in the collection as the favorite. 2) we should enable RDAP providers to represent their own custom properties without furtherly extending the contact structure. Maybe, an array of pairs <key,value> could be enough. The default object members should cover 90% of use cases while the collection of <key,value> pairs could cover the remaining 10%. Hope it could be useful. mario > -andy > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext -- Dr. Mario Loffredo Servizi Internet e Sviluppo Tecnologico CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy E-Mail: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Phone: +39.0503153497 Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
- [regext] jCard fix/replacement discussion Andrew Newton
- Re: [regext] jCard fix/replacement discussion Mario Loffredo
- Re: [regext] jCard fix/replacement discussion Mario Loffredo
- Re: [regext] jCard fix/replacement discussion Alexey Melnikov