Re: [weirds] Response container structure

[Andy Newton <[e-mail]>]

On 9/17/12 10:08 PM, "Byron Ellacott" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>If someone is willing to demonstrate that their weirds server would
>require such a flag to meet actual or reasonably likely policy
>conditions, I'd be OK with including it.  Otherwise, it's just one more
>thing client software will need to consider, and the protocol will need
>to include.

That's an interesting take. I'll posit that even if such a flag were
needed for some policy reason, another policy will pop up needing another
flag, etcŠ But like you said, if somebody can demonstrate the need...

>>Actually, yes there is a very good technical reason. Not all registries
>> wish to model all data as first class objects. This is the cause of the
>> issue of name servers being attributes on domains vs being first class
>> objects. See section 4 of Unified Response
>> 
>>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-designteam-weirds-using-http-01#section
>>-9
>> ). I also see that we will have this issue with entities.
>
>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response-00#s
>ection-4)


DOH!

>I was thinking that you could just take the data you'd put inline in that
>section and move it down to an additional, but you're right in that where
>there's no handle or other identifier you'd be making up a UUID or
>something just to link the two items together, and it might be quite
>misleading to clients to have a handle that cannot be queried for
>separately.


Exactly!

>Regarding duplicated data objects, the unified response draft only has
>one entity object per entity handle.  There's no difference, that I can
>see.  It might be fractionally harder to find the particular type of
>entity you want, but one of the things we quickly see with the domain
>survey data is that the types of entities recorded is one of the most
>widely variant facets of registration data - I don't know that it's
>feasible to specify an enumeration of entity roles, and it might be hard
>to even specify a minimum set.


Agreed.

-andy