Re: [weirds] Required values in JSON responses

[Audric Schiltknecht <[e-mail]>]

Le 2014-10-24 11:11, Maarten Bosteels a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 24/10/14 16:02, "Andy Newton" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/24/14, 9:43 AM, "Audric Schiltknecht"
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have not followed all previous discussions about this, so I may be
>>> missing some information regarding this issue.
>>>
>>> In current JSON response draft (version 10):
>>>
>>> * Section 2.1:
>>>   Clients processing JSON responses need to be prepared for values
>>>   specified in this document to be absent from a response, as no JSON
>>>   value listed is required to appear in a response.  In other words,
>>>   servers are free to not included values based on their own policies.
>>>
>>> I understand this statement as the fact that there is no REQUIRED values
>>> defined in all the document (and that in fact, even an empty JSON
>>> response is a valid response).
>>>
>>> (Also, there is a small nit: "servers are free to not included values" ->
>>> "servers are free to not include values").
>>>
>>>
>>> However,
>>> * Section 4.9
>>>   An objectClassName is REQUIRED in all RDAP
>>>   response objects so that the type of the object can be interpreted.
>>>
>>> This sections states that the 'objectClassName' JSON member is REQUIRED.
>>>
>>> Furthermore,
>>> * Section 4.2:
>>>
>>>   The JSON name/values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media",
>>>   and "type" correspond to values found in Section 5 of [RFC5988].  The
>>>   "value" JSON value is the context URI as described by [RFC5988].  The
>>>   "href" JSON value MUST be specified.  All other JSON values are
>>>   OPTIONAL.
>>>
>>> Here, the 'href' value is a MUST for 'links' array.
>>>
>>>
>>> Long story short, sections 4.2 and 4.9 both specify required values for
>>> JSON objects whereas Section 2.1 states that there is no required value.
>>>
>>> Did I miss something about that?
>>
>> No, I think you found a wording glitch. I propose the following change:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>>   Clients processing JSON responses need to be prepared for values
>>   specified in this document to be absent from a response, as no JSON
>>   value listed is required to appear in a response.  In other words,
>>   servers are free to not included values based on their own policies.
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>
>>   Clients processing JSON responses need to be prepared for values
>>   representing registration data specified in this document to be
>>   absent from a response.  In other words, servers are free to not
>>   included JSON values containing registration data based on their
>>   own policies.
> 
> NEWER: 
> 
> 
> Clients processing JSON responses need to be prepared for values
>    representing registration data specified in this document to be
>    absent from a response.  In other words, servers are free to not
>    include JSON values containing registration data based on their
>    own policies.
> 
> Replaced "free to not included" by "free to not include"

That looks better, indeed.


Related to the 'objectClassName' requirement, Section 5 may also need to
be changed:

   In addition to the "links" array with a self link, servers SHOULD
   provide an "objectClassName" (see Section 4.9) string in each object.

I think it is possible to completely remove this sentence, since it is
already expressed in Section 4.9 (as a REQUIRED value).

Regards,
Audric