Hi Gustavo,
thanks for you comment.
For the sake of limiting the implications of rdap-jscontact on
rdap-redacted, just checked on some web sites providing UUID generators
that "nil UUID" and "empty UUID" are synonyms.
Since rdap-redacted defines "redaction by Empty Value" (rather than
empty string), wonder if we could consider the setting of the uid
property to an Empty/nill UUID (i.e.
"00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000") as an usage of such a method.
As a result, the same redaction method could be used to redact uid
values in both free-text and UUID formats.
Another possible solution is to define in rdap-redacted a registry
including the redaction methods.
New redaction method names like those suggested by Gustavo could be
defined by future documents (rdap-jscontact primarily) that can't find a
match among the methods listed in rdap-redacted.
Thoughts?
Best,
Mario
Il 04/04/2023 04:24, Gustavo Lozano Ibarra ha scritto:
Hi Mario, et. Al.,
Comments inline.
Regards,
Gustavo
On 4/2/23, 11:38 PM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
HI Andy,
Il 31/03/2023 23:36, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
> If the uid can be free text according to JSContact, why do we need to
> override that? RDAP servers can just put random text in that field,
> which has the same effect of the UUID URN.
>
> That said, I like Gavin's idea. I could live with Option 4 or Option 3.
[ML] I would have no objection to use Option 3 or Option 4 but both of
them require to define a new redaction method because none of those
currently defined can be used in those cases.
GL - Correct, and I think that having those new redaction methods defined in
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted is a must.
I have been in conversations with users of RDDS (a term in the gTLD world that
means the service used to consume registration data) in which there is a desire
to differentiate between:
* No data was provided in the response because no data exists in the server's
database.
* Data exists in the database, but it was redacted in the response.
* The data provided in the response is the actual data in the database, even if the
semantics of the value are non-customary, for example, a registrant providing
"REDACTED FOR PRIVACY" (a well-known string used in Whois to indicate
redaction) as their name.
The "redacted" member defined in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted provides the
signaling mechanism that satisfies the requirements above.
If option 3 is selected with a random value, a signal is needed to differentiate between
data persisted in the database and randomly generated values. Maybe we can add
"redaction by random value" to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted?
If option 4 is selected, I think adding a signal in the "redacted" member is also desired in order to have a central
place signaling all redactions in the response. It is straightforward for an implementer to understand that "redacted"
contains all redacted data elements, and they need to do "X" in the interface if a data element is defined as redacted.
If we go with option 4 without support in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted, there would be this unique scenario that it's not in
the "redacted" member, but it's still redacted if you find the special value. Maybe we can "redaction by
placeholder value" to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted?
Otherwise uid could be the only RDAP property that can be redacted
through a kind of placeholder value without being included in the
redacted array.
Do you agree about it ?
Option 1 leverages the Empty Value redaction method and free-text format
but it's likely that a JSContact implementation will check not only for
the not null constraint but also for the not empty constraint.
Therefore, even in this case and similarly to Option 2, a JSContact
implementation should distignuish cards used outside RDAP from those
used inside RDAP.
Option 2 doesn't need a new redaction method and enbales an RDAP server
to set the uid property as it sees fit:
- assigning it with a valid value and, when needed, redacting it by the
Removal method
- omitting the uid property
That being said, if the WG agreed about adding a new redaction method to
macth Option 3 and Option 4, I wouldn't object.
Best,
Mario
> -andy
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:52 PM Mario Loffredo
> <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> Il 31/03/2023 14:32, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: regext<regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 7:45 AM
>>>> To:regext@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Redacting JSContact uid in RDAP - Updated
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> just reported below all the options (including Gavin's proposal) and
the
>>>> preferences given thus far.
>>>>
>>>> Please, express your preference(s).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot in advance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) Redacting by Empty Value method
>>>>
>>>> 2) Making uid optional in RDAP and then redacting by Removal method
>>>>
>>>> - J.Gould
>>>>
>>>> 3) Recommending the use of UUIDs that prevent from correlation (e.g.
>>>> either randomly generated or nil UUIDs)
>>>>
>>>> 4) Redacting by using a registered URN in the IANA namespace (e.g.
>>>> "urn:ietf:params:json:rdap+jscontact:uidRedacted")
>>>>
>>>> - G. Brown
>>>>
>>>> 5) Anything else ?
>>> [SAH] Which of these options is the least likely to break a JSContact
parser?
>> [ML] I would say that it all depends on the constraints your
>> implementation checks.
>>
>> Since uid is a JSON String and assuming that it isn't used to model some
>> JSContact relationship, the possible constraints to check are in order
>> of priority:
>>
>> - Not null
>>
>> - Not empty
>>
>> - Compliance to a possible format
>>
>> Unless RDAP overrides the JSContact spec (as stated by options 3 and 4)
>> , the uid value can be a free-text hence the last constraint can't be
>> checked.
>>
>> With regard to the first two constraints:
>>
>> - option 3 and 4 will make both the checks result in a success
>>
>> - option 2 will make both the checks result in a failure
>>
>> - option 1 will make the check on 2nd constraint result in a failure
>>
>>
>> Some additional considerations:
>>
>> - if we comply to JSContact recommendation of assigning uid with an URN
>> in the UUID namespace, option 3 would be preferrable. URI and free-text
>> (including the empty string) are presently allowed for compatibility
>> with RFC6350 but could be deprecated in the future. To redact a
>> mandatory UUID to prevent from correlation, maybe an addtional redaction
>> method should be considered.
>>
>> - jscontact-tools checks for the first two constraints (and, in the case
>> of a group card, it executes other consistency checks). Such constraints
>> are validated statically through annotations on properties but it's
>> quite easy to intercept the error messages and skip the failure of "not
>> null" constraint depending on the validation context.
>>
>>
>> Given that, my opinion is that option 2 would be preferrable because it
>> would enable the uid implementation in RDAP to be detached from the
>> possible uid evolution in the main spec.
>>
>> As a result, I would also recommend to use an UUID when a server returns
>> an undisclosed uid property.
>>
>> Note that an UUIDv5 can be generated from another property (like the
>> handle) and this enables a server to generate always the same uid value
>> without storing it somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Apologize for the long explanation.
>>
>> Hope it could be helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mario
>>
>>> My preference is leans towards whichever option or options will be the
most
>>> compatible with implementations of JSContact such that any RDAP
complexity is
>>> handled in the RDAP-implementing software.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> regext mailing list
>>> regext@ietf.org
>>>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext__;!!PtGJab4!5N3BqQl31If-aiYx5yPXyVHPjDH77zp4RtS9qkOulurwO092guED-OaHVVaxya2A828AjwvwWKEY4wQFG2e5NpdMnNuDnSbXj8GLfIk$
[ietf[.]org]
>> --
>> Dott. Mario Loffredo
>> 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:https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo__;!!PtGJab4!5N3BqQl31If-aiYx5yPXyVHPjDH77zp4RtS9qkOulurwO092guED-OaHVVaxya2A828AjwvwWKEY4wQFG2e5NpdMnNuDnSbXHi7Pt_k$
[iit[.]cnr[.]it]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> regext@ietf.org
>>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext__;!!PtGJab4!5N3BqQl31If-aiYx5yPXyVHPjDH77zp4RtS9qkOulurwO092guED-OaHVVaxya2A828AjwvwWKEY4wQFG2e5NpdMnNuDnSbXj8GLfIk$
[ietf[.]org]
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
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:https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo__;!!PtGJab4!5N3BqQl31If-aiYx5yPXyVHPjDH77zp4RtS9qkOulurwO092guED-OaHVVaxya2A828AjwvwWKEY4wQFG2e5NpdMnNuDnSbXHi7Pt_k$
[iit[.]cnr[.]it]
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext__;!!PtGJab4!5N3BqQl31If-aiYx5yPXyVHPjDH77zp4RtS9qkOulurwO092guED-OaHVVaxya2A828AjwvwWKEY4wQFG2e5NpdMnNuDnSbXj8GLfIk$
[ietf[.]org]
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
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
