[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-02.txt

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

Andy,

It may be useful to include guidance for RDAP extensions use of the RDAP JSON Values registry in the extensions draft.  I believe that new RDAP extensions should be encouraged to support standard values to increase interoperability, where extending the RDAP JSON Values registry is better than creating a new registry specific to the RDAP extension and certainly better than not leveraging the RDAP JSON Values registry at all.  The Redacted Extension did this to define three new types with "redacted name", "redacted reason", and "redacted expression language", and the language used in the first paragraph of section 6.2 supported the extension of the types.  We could look to have any new types define the expected format of the values to help support the review by the DEs, where some types may be more freeform than others (e.g., support mixed case).  For example, the "redacted name" values did use mixed case to match the source policy and I believe the "redacted reason" values would be in more sentence form with mixed case and potentially punctuation.  The "redacted expression language" is more of an identifier, so it could be predefined as being only lowercase.  The Versioning Extension has a similar extension of the RDAP JSON Values registry types with the "versioning" type and registration of the values of "opaque" and "semantic".  I view the "versioning" type as more of an identifier, where being lowercase makes sense.  

The extensions draft could clarify the expected value format for the predefined types in the RDAP RFCs and provide the guidance for how to define new types with the expected value format for future RDAP extensions.

-- 

JG 



James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[e-mail] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[e-mail]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> 




On 8/22/24, 1:45 PM, "Andrew Newton (andy)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


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. 


On 8/20/24 09:15, Gould, James wrote:
> Andy,
>
> In reviewing the updates to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions, I believe that we need to reconsider the criteria for the RDAP JSON Registry values. Based on the types initially defined, the use of lowercase only values may make sense, but for the recently registered values from the RDAP Profile for redaction includes mixed case to exactly match the values in the source policy. The use of lowercase is a non-normative "should", so would future registration requests that have justification for mixed case run into an issue and be considered a violation of the criteria? Should we consider updating the criteria in RFC 9083 based on the implementation experience of the recent registrations or provide additional clarity in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions?
>
> Thanks,
>
James,


Those are all good points, and I am unaware of any impact on 
implementations from the mixed case registrations. I think the need to 
match text from another document is a good use case and overrides any 
desired "style". I'll change this section in a PR and pass the link when 
it is up. Until then I have created this tracking issue. 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Zq4w5NqHzo9F6L15R_wLRX0WkvUHoF83pLe4eWxLEsuO64JE79TRPYRH_UVeXEIKpwpR2yn4hvDLf1buT0qfqe_q5IQDcS-9zC7ZVyEfeaY0S2v3JmS7PybtvJOIknRiwar9KLvORxRAOaYPPl_YcJuGjWZtHlOx0hIkaH7aSxR7NbpZvrCvrkCCGBrrHxqNI9Zc6ZNi_qxjpyXEZZr8mFj701Blsl0rXX0_Sandxg8W87sagRZS34NwkbSxkMaR0Uk3dImFBAXes5vD-rZVCn7taRB16m4OGFVX5WuOP-4/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fanewton1998%2Fdraft-regext-rdap-extensions%2Fissues%2F29 <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Zq4w5NqHzo9F6L15R_wLRX0WkvUHoF83pLe4eWxLEsuO64JE79TRPYRH_UVeXEIKpwpR2yn4hvDLf1buT0qfqe_q5IQDcS-9zC7ZVyEfeaY0S2v3JmS7PybtvJOIknRiwar9KLvORxRAOaYPPl_YcJuGjWZtHlOx0hIkaH7aSxR7NbpZvrCvrkCCGBrrHxqNI9Zc6ZNi_qxjpyXEZZr8mFj701Blsl0rXX0_Sandxg8W87sagRZS34NwkbSxkMaR0Uk3dImFBAXes5vD-rZVCn7taRB16m4OGFVX5WuOP-4/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fanewton1998%2Fdraft-regext-rdap-extensions%2Fissues%2F29>


Thanks for the input.


-andy