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. -andy On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:52 PM Mario Loffredo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > Il 31/03/2023 14:32, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: regext <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo > >> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 7:45 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> 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 > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > -- > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
