Hi James,

I know that entities mapped to EPP contacts cannot support multiple emails but such contacts match only a subset of the roles defined in RDAP so, in theory, they don't cover all the cases.

Definitively, I was just wondering if the document should address this topic for the sake of completeness.

If you think no clarification is needed because it corresponds to an edge case never or rarely occurring in practice, I'm OK with it.


Best,

Mario

Il 19/05/2022 15:21, Gould, James ha scritto:

Mario,

Thank you for the review and feedback.  Can a registrant contact have more than one email value?   RFC 5733 support only a single email property per contact.  You stated, “such an assumption is correct because the registrant information includes only one email but think it cannot be generically valid”.  Can you clarify the case where a contact can have more than one email value?

Thanks,

--

JG




*James Gould
*Fellow Engineer
[email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

*From: *Mario Loffredo <[email protected]>
*Date: *Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 9:10 AM
*To: *James Gould <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

Hi James,

please find my comments below.

Il 03/05/2022 14:43, Gould, James ha scritto:

    The draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04 has been posted that
    includes the following updates:

    1.Added the Redaction by Replacement Value Method in Section 3.3
    
(https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.html#section-3.3
    
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lW43qJJgPeeQvzWZ5wru9ZISUb5kBs3Q7BI7y7qmKJb9kgY1w1u0pofxkotRMwuk0KFF7Y0ZaKFG0xp9j6eVxQH0aE4C5PHvrINfMfhi0GG_ECtDAWC2YnvcmS6X0wcVLO0ieJnEUfJ9zQQyfiATC_0vglKEWDluriYbjZWeAc-vJ9z5RicXptKdB50HfPifUhvaRTNs_pqoH21k4eDAaEAlV3NEIQf7XENvbuZBlhUq0QHCZDvgA3OlO1sxun8-/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.html%23section-3.3>)


    1.There is an example of replacing the registrant email with an
    anonymized email and with a web form, along with the associated
    “replacementValue” redacted member.  We’re particularly interested
    in a review of these examples.

    2.Any other feedback related to the definition of the Redaction by
    Replacement Value Method is greatly appreciated.

[ML] Doesn't seem to me you have already dealt with this issue: I tried to tackle the case when a contact information includes multiple properties of the same type but not all of them are redacted, e.g. a registrant with two emails but only one is redacted.

Since the collection of emails (and in general any collection) is represented through a map in JSContact, it is relatively easy to identify the item removed by a JSONPath expression.

Can't do the same when jCard is used (please make the test and you'll realize what I'm meaning)

Unfortunately, "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]" <mailto:$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]> doesn't select a specific email but all the registrant emails so the JSONPath expression works under the assumption that all the registrant emails are redacted. In DNRs, such an assumption is correct because the registrant information includes only one email but think it cannot be generically valid ?

    2.

    1.

    3.Implemented the changes included in my prior list posting
    (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/LgFFahqbRfT-9Lwj_IzJUmLw02E/
    
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1CXxCrncjNOKMkYdPXE_uND_KFCCPk4ZkM1PQVwbWEQCigjHNOdBohKQqipWO2Dzu-Wu4uSuSDUX6A9HBV55jKct_yNNV5AIWp0EmfWFS3uiVi-p37-hMfkNpypcLjo6yakP20gfjcySWOxSgbrjujAoBlSk-PYGXLy07dVjMSEsZtdpVPXV_4-Ud7Dlj6-3ICViXQW_PW4UfA_XH4nNow1HNE_noR8dHGAqTe19710pSJS_o8zqk8RXtRVfsdMyb/https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fregext%2FLgFFahqbRfT-9Lwj_IzJUmLw02E%2F>)
    to the Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments thread

    1.Changed the extension identifier from “redacted_0.1” to
    “redacted”, which now makes it a prefix with a NULL suffix for the
    new “redacted” member and is used as the prefix for the new
    rdapConformance value, following the format “redacted_level_X.X”.

    2.Changed the rdapConformance value to “redacted_level_0.2”, based
    on the new format defined in 2.a above and based on bumping the
    pointed version number for the addition of the Redaction by
    Replacement Value Method. The plan is to set the rdapConformance
    value for the extension to “redacted_level_1.0” once the draft
    passes WGLC, which is what we’ve been doing for a while with the
    EPP extension namespaces.

[ML] I just provided comment about this solution in my reply to last Tom's post.

Best,

Mario

    4.

    1.

    Thanks,

--
    JG

    James Gould

    Fellow Engineer

    [email protected]
    <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
    
<mailto:applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>

    703-948-3271

    12061 Bluemont Way

    Reston, VA 20190

    Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
    
<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zj_Wn-ahNrkyybP1wvtyIFwhnhIHS9GEeRrj2AuIVq5pZriftL7B-2cWJJ140VJ4dLRHAVSffrdBKB9Kbdjj4VdNSQ3uIdUeTWT_JqsU06NpuwgMfLgP5PFlZhH6XRp-aSbspB3y2McwPJuooGmnza0SBu4_sFHAwkl2xNuzsAlhPgxOFNkeSM4p_kjjgfOIg3LFJjbfA0r4o2eBkUoCEkrT5RlfphAUUIAxEx0Hut3aaT_kgKLDWHI4ayXFnezW/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>

    On 5/3/22, 7:25 AM, "regext on behalf of [email protected]"
    <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
    <mailto:[email protected][email protected]>
    wrote:

        A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
    Internet-Drafts directories.

        This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols
    Extensions WG of the IETF.

                Title           : Redacted Fields in the Registration
    Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response

                Authors         : James Gould

                                  David Smith

                                  Jody Kolker

                                  Roger Carney

                    Filename        :
    draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

                    Pages           : 36

                    Date            : 2022-05-03

        Abstract:

           This document describes an RDAP extension for explicitly
    identifying

           redacted RDAP response fields, using JSONPath as the default

           expression language.

        The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

    
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1x-VG6CImzTlCGjIEnGh3UReyF6KcdwqoQeLNf9tkRoXr-Hbud0XOIm2f-6MhFDYeYQuCH-wMHySVjWacUjnYP4tkwEDMAtKdSRbn0-9vZZMPgxmwC0iDBsZh-uy0ci1TybDzHi8V-0-qMR8D40ESniIww96cXTVYHzYZcPNGsBQDX3qp5U8flMiwMScEfptGyR7g8ggM_M9MqldZU2RpP3LaSGH-TW8OzDeZw0elbwyW2deSB7Ij3NMrclYkv5mx/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted%2F

        There is also an HTML version available at:

    
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PF_lhN2UDnoz1Ruf4u5cC6rxSzNCX501zZ-KfZyG6TeSFqZudkf8dZIYdnVhC59ozli_CP7W4n68glodLadvDA-RKI5evQQCsdU5hTZb2608mfgT4Ia00Id7Y3My4AV_rGdLRQ9ojhoNMVQV1ccYipRXruBOZ0YP_5feW3fdNW7_4vmu1Zz08fL0j9xtIwnLIiD2afECd2biXYYN9lDy4n2eUERNPb67o4kk3aiRG586GvLaVIQ8WiCABjrUk4vl/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.html

        A diff from the previous version is available at:

    
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1noo8qgtcfMe41QL3N2DP-bXuOyXX02SW0YDuOreZR92eC4V-6jchaJDEJE6zU1T-4lqoEfmDuvMO0EScK8Sx2YkiaJm7OD1BEX6-HiNxSvWUFfZnV8bd_6qHrbehvMxatL1DJ-n60NHXv4c3oTOES5pDsz89RDIht2Yl1KeLwDfVHvzk04-2jZ3HdgxR_H9n8RaNy12vBltdR7wsl7EtU548djNWO0LNSDwKrL4jWOL9pPAypjlbJEUVjHdQIGy6/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04

        Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at
    rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts

    _______________________________________________

        regext mailing list

    [email protected]

    
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1J62k_BaA5ndMDE39Tr1HaeHVp-srgMRHVHJHaNVGrpNZsGy5KaYKOcMSamvGBBzXoLpMYJsuFfjKoCuG9U_szicWBL573RagNpBfLrfgmVYDCRxYKQ5AkdgUPD8MiLAJ73mXnBiXPmG74ubMv1wHXxoFoFLIkG5R46WPHtuJc6XSwStAIWG2NmRoVyfalZbAlqT5cU4b3QTTKHp-rzl2A7bIO5TLsksBpAgRD1tNKRqxsDa1Uw_f4xgypMLDa_li/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext



    _______________________________________________

    regext mailing list

    [email protected]

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext  
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1q_HmBcT4KUrIIzPkUSviKd5GAe5sIUI9NbN5SCM3dk7-sbH22RhgG3I_Z3Xj_pkOFX1oFdRuGfkamEAkZjuysZqRltndoXn7npPB4nJkcasm4iRlI8N4clbIwzlqskdeJHBUHRvc3Xrekwe6pBLAnTvwZM7AwML7Hz3Rl7SQ-njSqNMWCtOScOXL3mJhQho3AFrsoncOuK7xuWfudMcpsZABc8Ik6AC-QM3TFU-gUa7_6x0-k4Ef0SotO9Pfk2zy/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://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo  
<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zdA5mIjXCyzQMmvvCRMA7LjC1MzdZP5m9aq9iZyuK5Q2mbKCkan2I5yM0W6sP3JGL3P1gZ4z7lN89LyZFG7NnnXEUa4pwaiWxNpRIGHc7_8avFxDFYjKVjCiBr9qSlnYGH2NvD5xHGFYP7mlmJBfVTHJNUuPwNOl0BOsB_aQPQX5TUu-FpfY9aEgzdcvLl8o2FxYcmzVLzCcb6uBYlOdg_6n-6xSDpHL5kEqAeX5ZCW5gIuhKIcpFly9v8iY5INq/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo>

--
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://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to