Hi all, This extended second WGLC should have ended November 3th, and the chairs asked for clarity from the document shepherd and authors that the document was stable and all comments were addressed and not material.
After the document shepherd made that statement, there were new changes made to the document, and there is currently another technical discussion on one of the options that require a choice by the working group. The chairs have decided to take this document back into the working group until that discussion has ended, and since we cannot judge ourselves if this is a material change, we will issue another WGLC once the document is stable and all issues are addressed, so that we can make a clear consensus call on the final stable version of this document. Regards, Jim and Antoin > Op 3 okt. 2022, om 15:26 heeft Antoin Verschuren > <ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org> het volgende geschreven: > > This extended WGLC will close tonight. > > This WGLC started with version 12 of the document, and during WGLC, we had 2 > changes to the document. > > We therefor need the following for us to move this document along after WGLC > ends: > > 1. The document shepherd needs to state that no material changes have been > made between version 12 and 14 of the document. > > 2. The document shepherd needs to state that all comments received during > WGLC have now been addressed in version 14. > > 3. Patrick, could you please state that the comments you made during WGLC are > now addressed in version 14 so that Tom can make this statement? > > After all these are addressed, then we can declare consensus and move the > document along. > > > > >> Op 26 sep. 2022, om 16:00 heeft Antoin Verschuren >> <ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>> >> het volgende geschreven: >> >> Given the discussion below, we are considering to extend this WGLC for at >> most 1 week until this discussion is settled. >> When there are any other objections, or expressions of support, this WGLC >> would have ended today with enough support for consensus. >> So please let's try to settle this issue before Oktober 3th. >> >> We would then need the document shepherd to state that Patrick’s changes >> will be addressed in a new version of the draft, and that no material >> changes were made. Adding informative references as an extra implementation >> guidance are not substantial changes. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jim and Antoin >> >> >>> Op 26 sep. 2022, om 11:46 heeft Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it >>> <mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> het volgende geschreven: >>> >>> Hi Patrick, >>> >>> thanks for your review. >>> >>> Please find my comments inline. >>> >>> Il 25/09/2022 18:21, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto: >>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 08:54, Antoin Verschuren wrote: >>>>> Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” is >>>>> sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by >>>>> replying to this message on the list. >>>> I should probably have said something earlier, sorry about this. >>> Better in late than never ;-) >>>> But I have a concern about §6 Implementation Considerations >>>> as I think it glances over far too quickly on very important points. >>>> >>>> I think it can be easy to expect reverse queries to generate "lots" of >>>> results, >>>> but then all examples given ("restricting the >>>> search functionality, limiting the rate of search requests according >>>> to the user's authorization, truncating and paging the results, and >>>> returning partial responses.") are not given details, which means there >>>> will be left >>>> to implementors and hence multiple incompatible solutions will emerge >>>> which will make writing >>>> a client more complex, for any case where it has to span multiple RDAP >>>> servers >>>> (and then you are exactly in same territory as EPP extensions, too many of >>>> them and too incompatible between them to easily write one client working >>>> with all servers). >>>> >>>> There is RFC 8977 "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query >>>> Parameters for Result >>>> Sorting and Paging" but it is not even >>>> referenced from this draft. >>>> Same for RFC 8982 "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial >>>> Response", shouldn't >>>> be cited at least as a non-normative reference? >>> Absolutely. Thank you for this remark. Agree that they could be added as >>> informative references. >>> >>>> - "restricting the search functionality" does that mean by things related >>>> to the protocol like constraints on `{searchable-resource-type}` or on >>>> `{related-resource-type}` or on `<search-condition>` or by things external >>>> to it, like rate-limit? How will a client discover that it got limited for >>>> any of those reasons? >>> Do believe that such note can be applied to the RDAP searches in general. >>> >>> That said, each provider can decide to restrict the usage of the query >>> capabilities as he sees fit. >>> >>> One restriction on generic searches could consist in allowing only those >>> partial matching queries including a minimum number of characters before >>> the wildcard. >>> >>> Another one, specific for reverse search, could be to mandate the use of >>> the "role" parameter. >>> >>> The way for servers to signal clients about having issued a search request >>> that cannot be processed is defined in section 4 of RFC 9082, that is, by >>> returning an error. >>> >>> For each of the implemented aforementioned restrictions, the RDAP server >>> can return an error response including information about the reason of the >>> request failure. >>> >>>> - "truncating and paging the results": maybe mention RFC 8977 and 8982 >>>> - "returning partial responses.": RFC 8982? >>> Yes, see my previous comment. >>>> But how RFC 8982 would apply here since it is not necessarily the client >>>> asking for limited >>>> data in return but the server deciding to prune them in content or length? >>>> >>>> Same question in fact for RFC 8977, that starts with client requesting >>>> specific subsets and order. >>> Don't see any difference in an RDAP server supporting the operators defined >>> in both RFC8982 and RFC8977 in this specific search rather than in other >>> searches. >>> >>> The benefits for clients from using such operators are common to all of the >>> searches as their implementation supports clients in issuing requests that >>> are less likely to be pruned by the server and obtaining more manageable >>> responses. Hence, they can achieve relevant information in shorter time. >>> >>> Could you please clarify why those operators would be useless specifically >>> here ? >>> >>>> I also dislike the mention of indexes here because this is specific >>>> terminology >>>> of specific technologies and as such I don't believe an RFC describing a >>>> protocol >>>> should lay any assumption or give constraints on how implementers decide >>>> to implement it. >>> Seems to me that the sentence in question works quite well since the words >>> "indexes and similar functionalities" are used in their common meaning of >>> techniques to speed up the data retrieval. They don't hint at a specific >>> technology. >>> >>> In addition, the sentence is set as a recommendation in order to guide >>> implementers to choose the reverse search properties appropriately. >>> >>> The proposed reverse search properties are generally "indexed" but the >>> document allows the RDAP providers to define additional ones. >>> >>> Anyway, I would have no problem to change that sentence if there was a >>> better way to express the same concept. >>> >>> For example, would it be fine for you If I changed the sentence to the >>> following? >>> >>> To limit the impact of processing the search predicates, servers are >>> RECOMMENDED to make use of techniques to speed up the data retrieval in >>> their >>> underlying data store such as indexes or similar. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Mario >>> >>> -- >>> 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://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo>_______________________________________________ >>> regext mailing list >>> regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
