Hi. +1 for this doc being on standards track.
Jasdip From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Antoin Verschuren <ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:10 AM To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt Hi All, I’m glad that my bad phrasing at least got some action into this discussion. I didn’t mean to say that we can’t have 2 standards, but we should at least have clarity on the status of this document. Because the original document title was "jcard-deprecation<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation/>", and the introduction still talks about the intent and transition mechanisms to replace jCard, we can be a bit clearer that jsContact is a second standard, at least until jCard can be deprecated from support in RDAP after jsContact is sufficiently supported. When we all agree jsContact is a second standards track document not intended to deprecate jCard just yet today, then that’s fine. If we don’t get feedback this document should have a different status than standards track, then the chairs will add that intended status next week. Which leaves the remaining questions Mario posted in his original message. - -- Antoin Verschuren Op 8 dec. 2021, om 14:53 heeft Gould, James <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> het volgende geschreven: I view the jscontact is a valid use case for a standards track RDAP extension. We have many similar use cases for standards track extensions in EPP, where the RFCs couldn't envision a feature or an approach that comes up later. The jscontact draft needs to be defined as an RDAP extension that is optional, with the appropriate signaling, and with transition considerations to support a transition from the jCard defined in RFC 9083 to JSContact defined in the extension. I don't foresee that support for jCard will go away, but that JSContact can be become an alternative and potentially a preferred format for the RDAP contact data. As Scott points out, supporting multiple formats can add complexity, but I believe that is a known cost to progress. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisign.com/> <http://verisigninc.com/> On 12/8/21, 5:31 AM, "regext on behalf of Gavin Brown" <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of gavin.br...@centralnic.com<mailto:gavin.br...@centralnic.com>> wrote: On 8 Dec 2021, at 09:55, Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it<mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> wrote: Il 07/12/2021 14:42, Marc Blanchet ha scritto: Le 7 déc. 2021 à 08:35, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> a écrit : We can *certainly* do that, Mario. It’s the option I support because there is a cost to replace a jCard implementation once it’s been implemented and deployed. Make it an optional extension and let server operators decide if/when they want to make the change. I note that this will make life more difficult for client implementors because they’ll have to support both formats. But the genie is already out of the bottle… I.e. if one have done a client implementation, it has already support for jCard. Adding the JSContact is just more code. There will be only less work if one is implementing a client in the future after the whole ecosystem had moved to JSContact, therefore no need to implement jCard, which is still a good win, as I guess that many haven’t implemented a client yet since whois is still dominant and RDAP is not yet at the same level. +1 Every extension requires an implementation effort and every transition process from the old to the new requires a period where both coexist. If we hadn't been aware of that, we wouldn't have started the process to replace Whois with RDAP. And, like Marc pointed out, this process is still at the beginning and we still don't imagine when it will really be completed. In addition to that, I wonder why some members are so worried about the implementation effort done in this case in comparison to other extensions that completed the reviewing process. Speaking as a client implementer, the amount of work required to update my RDAP client to support JSContact was minimal - which speaks to how much easier JSContact is to work with than jCard. You can see every change required in https://client.rdap.org<https://client.rdap.org/> here: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_Pf0XRu1tk3UR9-6jZ90CvItjm2neWOUbvFQlelz4q63NRctDM-rSfl0bSRaAV5EIV9aE7ka0U0or5uuTlvu68I6aSE7VnsWBMFLUFRToK6mDmJVHxBBFK9ztDZYSfxcAMaVmIUkFCaAOHPItTkzGJXFdCLs60lPUJp2yLiotBDfMlMsuDyuTUll6Ztrs4m3Vj8YoUgfwCkcXc0kxZzpigQikmbW3FGPQi8p2bgQ2NvJay4AkRznJp9CFRCj47UD/https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.centralnic.com%2Fcentralnic%2Frdap-web-client%2F-%2Fcompare%2Fba4fd514...c9deae03 Getting JSContact working in the CentralNic RDAP server took a bit more work, but I see it as being worthwhile if it makes life easier for client implementers. We are still in the early days of RDAP, and the amount of RDAP code that exists now is much smaller than the amount of RDAP code still to be written. If we can make a modest change now that makes that future code smaller and easier to write and maintain, we should do so. (full disclosure: I am a co-author on this draft). G. For example, why haven't we been so concerned about the implementation effort required to client and servers in order to implement the EPP Login Security extension and the consequent period where clients and servers should deal with both the password formats ? And what about the implementation effort done to replace custom solutions already existing with new standard solutions? Honestly, it seems to me that the implementation effort required in this case is lower than the one required by other extensions. I believe that the main point is if we (intended as most of us) finally agree that the benefits from implementing an extension far outweigh the required efforts and we have evidence that the new will be significantly better than the old (and it seems to me we have it in this case). But, at the same time, we are not sure that the majority of EPP or RDAP operators will implement it. That's it. That being said, IMO, the status of this document should remain "Standard Track". +1 Best, Mario “Be liberal in what you accept” applies. yes. Marc. Scott From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 3:45 AM To: Antoin Verschuren <ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>>; regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt 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 all, maybe I'm missing something but is there anybody explaining me why we can have two standards for the email address in EPP but we cannot have two standards for the contact card in RDAP ? I admit that the reasons supporting the two documents are different but their matters appear very similar to me. Using JSContact inside RDAP is basically an extension. If we remove stages 3 and 4 of the transition from the document, we simply have an RDAP extension that is or isn't implemented by a server. This extension can be firstly signaled by the server, then requested by the client and consequently returned by the server just as it happens for the EAI extension in the EPP context. Best, Mario Il 06/12/2021 15:29, Antoin Verschuren ha scritto: Hi all, In addition to the questions from Mario, we still need to discuss the status of this document as discussed during the IETF112 meeting: "the document doesn’t have designated status; it was adopted without a status (on purpose). We need to think about the implications. Encouraged group to discuss/comment on the list” Meaning that because jCard is not depreciated with publishing this document, what will the status of this document be? We cannot have 2 standards, so we need to say something about it. Jim and Antoin Op 27 nov. 2021, om 09:04 heeft Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it<mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> het volgende geschreven: Hi folks, this new version addresses the feedback provided by Jasdip except for the following two points left for WG discussion: 1) In the sentence "To aid interoperability, RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to use as map keys the following string values and labels defined in [RFC5733].", should "are RECOMMNEDED to" be replaced with "MUST"? 2) Does the portion of the spec for jCard to JSContact transition signaling add significant implementation overhead for RDAP servers and clients? Could an out-of-band (OOB) method have been employed? Three more implementations were included. Best, Mario -------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt Data: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 23:53:34 -0800 Mittente: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> A: Gavin Brown <gavin.br...@centralnic.com>, Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Mario Loffredo and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact Revision: 04 Title: Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses Document date: 2021-11-26 Group: regext Pages: 22 URL: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uQaV0-jKtv71LGZlehOyaCbEn5S_Ja8HUolF3Idzs0e_X6-FOVJo79ccBlXhH8Pa8WvTzUORi1a4SnzxhrQs9woY7UjWIOVqZPWMMunD7Bcq-tk4w7ZBo0KaQJamS2bsqxpinoIQrlih28J7rvcPOJvt5q3ipkkJrjPDHmTGMLqO4pbwQKGB6A0GhAYFY9okn0vW4vpToNQYDmzNZzOP55THKmNPeTVzrti-rjdlQTOCYfeZM51CaTqCyLt6YIw5/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt Status: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1W_ZuCoeBQhlTAUM5Z4ZRKIx4K4jKuM1qJmBOKp5AeZk08Q1SxXm-qT_tC8nx1df8B4MjwdiE6nSQoTqiDxRNprsFJiPNDME0adRxhA48D6EAVpmf-tkCz5bUXAADdgF6CoWqR6WxYFZmGo0KRa2we7JFlk50h-ctdzsZUjT0nODUALd0zPW4yJCJTvw4iLkaJpOSNC2eYsyl5AiC3sWSkwfi4aJCpDrrUs8nTOdLRH77boJLF-mKuuJxiNwoBQ1B/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact%2F Htmlized: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Cx_B5RCTVwDAOt-QueJSoDp-xCQRSwYHOs3GoOtvUod_GALzjZbsE8G709DjYM10Ov8nGy4cFBWN3Lab20GfYe5tHFGy1pEEWXlt-PphwRDAt4BeFbP7JZAuzLh_MpFzyjeH2n-VK76nVNke2vzRLycvn_8zKBdNDZIObxdVSaPcesu0y8AXiid_qroZDoq6XFetaOmahdPzI4bg_fCPAoAJGpIoZmkOPi26F4sNiWZ9ESYHiqkjJqYzdXKkryBn/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact Diff: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1__y1AKzAWuKGNWrnDe1VzsI7jBkHbv-zIQJRkstV46WKKjLnIPWqu3L8brOPX9PsHJQQRBSTTRPlhh5rkFYg9alryyCc7HKf2TDH9wtlV6v7SmYP1vp9OjLBNITEz1J5dLVJoYpdD5-uErtfV9fuHTsY-zXDBi9b7f_zH_OwFkuz9weCyN7xw1shHH4GgfaGi5L2jwSG-eiz9DdcgeY64p9QRb1xWgHVEgNOvyzX6XwX-o8PoZg-rCwCqIqDm8PR/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04 Abstract: This document describes an RDAP extension which represents entity contact information in JSON responses using JSContact. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yb-57do9pn1MCHOdXmj15RKh_-Ull0dVu2cfvvH15Gti90YKFeNhBhj2ykIWxZgJ2j8BaYf-4TxPq75aoXjTqf0sFN3AyFWIo74k376pubPrT1E7z_wvqtwK5RpZgX_Nsa2NAVmKRr9HxhSIEt778NFHI2wCbsBi8gVnDpMnAfXKXdVSh03KTvqYZVaR9wVxluNfJC2IFHM5voS8BdnPfJ6teILwZOZflHWT1TVKg9NYeF1bgIugt5iQtMahv4o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yb-57do9pn1MCHOdXmj15RKh_-Ull0dVu2cfvvH15Gti90YKFeNhBhj2ykIWxZgJ2j8BaYf-4TxPq75aoXjTqf0sFN3AyFWIo74k376pubPrT1E7z_wvqtwK5RpZgX_Nsa2NAVmKRr9HxhSIEt778NFHI2wCbsBi8gVnDpMnAfXKXdVSh03KTvqYZVaR9wVxluNfJC2IFHM5voS8BdnPfJ6teILwZOZflHWT1TVKg9NYeF1bgIugt5iQtMahv4o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext -- Dr. 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1xIJoQsdiqp7TXVZSFzGEv8YUUvMoNSA3xaMYxkUI-7W8J25Bgr_Q7kvU04yiMB5aMxRncUD_XuByVtVf40IgGbgUKStfdITYBlOn9XJGHggHoNU13YTUMVK7Un4qI-4fnvZ-iqewk7VhgipQTtrIP9YQT5OE0sP7dhHtS3vkMuean0twqDZkeTWdAeplpoiFQDyLKIm4ZCE0vWNM5_UPH7Cy_q0PuU3hfEcXXguCSKYRGsFNavPifomzaHAJ4Kb7/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yb-57do9pn1MCHOdXmj15RKh_-Ull0dVu2cfvvH15Gti90YKFeNhBhj2ykIWxZgJ2j8BaYf-4TxPq75aoXjTqf0sFN3AyFWIo74k376pubPrT1E7z_wvqtwK5RpZgX_Nsa2NAVmKRr9HxhSIEt778NFHI2wCbsBi8gVnDpMnAfXKXdVSh03KTvqYZVaR9wVxluNfJC2IFHM5voS8BdnPfJ6teILwZOZflHWT1TVKg9NYeF1bgIugt5iQtMahv4o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yb-57do9pn1MCHOdXmj15RKh_-Ull0dVu2cfvvH15Gti90YKFeNhBhj2ykIWxZgJ2j8BaYf-4TxPq75aoXjTqf0sFN3AyFWIo74k376pubPrT1E7z_wvqtwK5RpZgX_Nsa2NAVmKRr9HxhSIEt778NFHI2wCbsBi8gVnDpMnAfXKXdVSh03KTvqYZVaR9wVxluNfJC2IFHM5voS8BdnPfJ6teILwZOZflHWT1TVKg9NYeF1bgIugt5iQtMahv4o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext -- Dr. 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1xIJoQsdiqp7TXVZSFzGEv8YUUvMoNSA3xaMYxkUI-7W8J25Bgr_Q7kvU04yiMB5aMxRncUD_XuByVtVf40IgGbgUKStfdITYBlOn9XJGHggHoNU13YTUMVK7Un4qI-4fnvZ-iqewk7VhgipQTtrIP9YQT5OE0sP7dhHtS3vkMuean0twqDZkeTWdAeplpoiFQDyLKIm4ZCE0vWNM5_UPH7Cy_q0PuU3hfEcXXguCSKYRGsFNavPifomzaHAJ4Kb7/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo -- Gavin Brown Head of Registry Services CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) https://secure-web.cisco.com/1jdq3DW0oaBcuR8g7MK_IAFftZoi9qNQONY2gbBkcdtkzdjgpDNfAwYhCiPXpzLJx7HXceBvuSlI_YmyAn4hM1OtmSzGtnkvhT7wTNN-A1uf1diCSDeMC34FjGmy4-gX_nzIyAgYI1aBek26Xy4yD9s4tM4zavbIJoxuOUNW1B-wh4eTwoZapI_RokIhaWWC2HwMDBlXqYBH66u-ZBms7vWKubbJ_g-YAiph8xJTCNzw1U155bn-_zQkjygvnJHS_/https%3A%2F%2Fcentralnicregistry.com Cal: http://cnic.link/gbcalendar CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: Saddlers House, Gutter Lane, London EC2V 6BR. https://secure-web.cisco.com/13-E0oRnwyeA8SenfNfBy4KMSGtCic3FVW1vcuJDPs9XkobKDsEK0YgbQpenao1bT_oCMeSL8v7X7dPPo_gFf_bXkz8tTZU92gvbXuBLb478kPPRkPRaJii-ywI_5V6zzMjROQ4O6fCkU2zeI5OntXAtYcD9BSWMQJAnDjXel6jy_Gli1quLEb9mnco30J8Uq_pyE_rhM3IQeFQCCeZJCNgadiftyUVNRwAPI-HnqgmDiTqbJ2Q2E5saGwX7Xsu4a/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.centralnic.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-yb-57do9pn1MCHOdXmj15RKh_-Ull0dVu2cfvvH15Gti90YKFeNhBhj2ykIWxZgJ2j8BaYf-4TxPq75aoXjTqf0sFN3AyFWIo74k376pubPrT1E7z_wvqtwK5RpZgX_Nsa2NAVmKRr9HxhSIEt778NFHI2wCbsBi8gVnDpMnAfXKXdVSh03KTvqYZVaR9wVxluNfJC2IFHM5voS8BdnPfJ6teILwZOZflHWT1TVKg9NYeF1bgIugt5iQtMahv4o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
