Hello Scott,
Please find my comments below.
Thanks,
Jasdip
P.S. Thanks to Tom for his analysis of all current extensions. :)
On 4/28/22, 10:27 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of
shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't
unique to reverse search, I thought it best to start another topic.
Section 6 of RFC 7480 introduces the concept of "an IANA registry for
prefixes
used in JSON [RFC7159] data serialization and URI path segments (see
Section
8)". "lunarNic" is given as an example in Section 8. I cannot, though, find
any mention of a MUST when it comes to using these prefixes for data
structures or URI path segments, though Section 8.1 says this:
"The extension identifier is used as a prefix in JSON names and as a prefix
of
path segments in RDAP URLs."
RFC 9083 is more definitive. From Section 4.1:
"When custom JSON values are inserted into responses, conformance to those
custom specifications MUST use a string prefixed with the appropriate
identifier from the IANA RDAP Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480].
For
example, if the fictional Registry of the Moon wants to signify that their
JSON responses are conformant with their registered extensions, the string
used might be "lunarNIC_level_0"."
Note the use of MUST here. Section 5 of RFC 9082 contains similar text:
"Custom path segments can be created for objects not specified here using
the
process described in Section 6 of "HTTP Usage in the Registration Data
Access
Protocol (RDAP)" [RFC7480].
Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a unique
identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For example, a
custom
entity path segment could be created by prefixing "entity" with "custom_",
producing "custom_entity"."
After re-reading all of this, my take is that extensions MUST tag new data
structures and path segments with the prefix that's registered with IANA.
That
means I'm going to have to change the data structures and path segments in
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid (I'm probably going to change the prefixes to
something shorter to make them a bit less clunky). Other extension
authors/editors should review their documents and provide their own
assessments.
[JS] Want to test-drive the phrase "new data structures and path segments " in
the "extensions MUST tag new data structures and path segments with the prefix
that's registered with IANA" suggestion. :)
A new data structure could be an entirely new object class (e.g. for a session
in RDAP OpenID), or a change in the member set for an existing object class
(say, for a domain). Is it correct to assume that for the former, the extension
prefix would be applied to the overall object name (e.g. "< RDAP OpenID
extension>_session") in the response whereas for the latter, only the new
members would be prefixed with the extension identifier (including version)?
As for using a new extension in a related new path segment (e.g. for reverse
search), we seem ok with having path segments like ".../<new extension>_0/...",
".../<new extension>_1/...", and so on for each subsequent new version of that
extension and not concerned about inadvertently introducing "brittleness" in
URLs for RDAP clients. Right?
Since this subject has engendered discussion/confusion over time, looks like a
good idea to detail it further in a new doc.
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
