Hi Andy,
please find my comments below.
Il 14/11/2023 14:38, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 2:53 AM Mario Loffredo
<mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
The technical problems with the signaling have been discussed at
length on this mailing list. A better and more generic solution has
been proposed in the rdap-x-media-type draft. We never really
discussed signaling during the session because the discussion was
focused on the data model. The signaling proposed in rdap-jscontact
section 3 cannot go forward as either standards track or experimental
as it is incompatible with the current ecosystem.
Why is it incompatible ?
As first discussed, with you, on this mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/k31GiGnrB4_Xu8c1pvatoT0oP9k/
-andy
[ML] About preserving query parameters in HTTP redirection, my opinion
is that it depends on each application protocol built over HTTP.
There are a ton of protocols on the web preserving query parameters in
redirection and AFAIU there is nothing in RFC9110 stating that query
parameters must be purged.
On the contrary, RFC 9110 itself admits that a POST could be redirected
and changed into a GET and I cannot imagine how it could be done without
using query parameters.
If RDAP rules out preserving query parameters in redirection, this ought
to be explicitly stated in section 5.2 of RFC 7480.
Anyway, I wouldn't welcome such a policy for the following reasons:
- RDAP is a relatively young protocol not yet largely used. At present,
I couldn't exclude such a feature from being useful in future developments.
- It would result in a sort of confusion between using query parameters
in lookups and searches and also between different lookups. To be noted
that rdap-openid, just gone through the WGLC, allows to specify two
parameters which can be used in RDAP queries.
- Bootstrapping is an optional feature. Would an RDAP provider be
allowed to define a request custom lookup extension incuding query
parameters if that kind of query will never be redirected ?
With regard to the content negotiation, I personally interpreted that
Accept header is used to negotiate a format involving the overall
response rather than a portion, i.e. the contact information.
Just to give an example: at last meeting, you mentioned CBOR. The use of
CBOR would not be restricted to only the contact information.
Anyway, I admit that this depends on different point of views.
Instead, I am a bit doubtful about how the "extension" parameter is
defined in the rdap-x draft but I confess that I'm not knowledgeable
about media types so I asked an expert for a clarification.
Best,
Mario
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
