Andy,
Thank you for providing information on the client implementation experience. I will review all the content in detail to provide my thoughts on how to address the issues. Much of your feedback is associated with the complexities of processing the JSONPath expressions, which provides an optional hint to the clients. The RDAP JSON responses are inherently complex with the mix of structured and unstructured content with jCard. At a minimum, the client can re-display the list of redactions to the end user in a user-friendly manner by keying off the “name” and “method” members. A standard set of “name” values can be defined by registering the “redacted name” RDAP JSON Values, which include a description that is meant for manual review by client implementors and not programmatic discovery. Such as the following for Figure 12: “Redacted RDAP Lookup Response” in RFC 9537: Redacted by Removal: * Registry Domain ID * Registrant Name * Registrant Organization * Registrant Street * Registrant City * Registrant Postal Code * Registrant Email * Registrant Phone * Technical Name * Technical Email * Technical Phone * Technical Fax * Administrative Contact * Billing Contact The “emptyValue” and “removal” method are different forms of removal, so they can be grouped in the removal bucket for the end users. Is there any other experience from client implementers (e.g., Marc Blanchet) that can be shared? Thanks, -- JG [cid87442*[email protected]] 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: "Andrew Newton (andy)" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 6:51 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt Hi all, Over the past several months, we have been implementing the RDAP redaction extension, RFC 9537. This I-D describes the issues we have encountered. -andy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 03:45:43 -0700 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: Andy Newton <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Andy Newton and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537 Revision: 00 Title: Considerations on RFC 9537 Date: 2024-05-29 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 12 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1mPMfNI2zob5OY_RHSNl_P1tnUeETO0o09c0W99TATan4s3PHChO6Kh1GiGUrfpIOmq6rKMwYi0JSWGkAQs2-cjvAkdc7uWAKWTZ_6BxEYYPPJgxWQILWPHRcZ_Tpd5HTVE30WZyezOXpEI0mSmbMrUK_Q30sXwoF87IHofTbGV7STLZFRkmmNTofEO74X4EQY6enivux3oILbYyXDii0CLePuRqOAZ4Qp3aWC4SLOnsSriEi-34rlQSYQIjI6h7_Q-SH5FjXk1QGLcdhrptCiGgVCA6f7sRzI_WC4NHhZtk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fNr0Hl9vsQaWidCOrR4dk8_7jjg-1TO_r1Bszl7rGuy8SKgw9GD6cCHI2YQnFxZdFFx5WZupc9gOjmLjjgcXrwyw-FTAWtkrPceSmR8xS87wUYeveCOq1QLrIj4GDwrSRyf8sAFwiQYIsMI6NTjxHl8mRM92bJEyMP7j64D3uMXkuv_wKVyOaHvmd7-C272ah5DqW4YenHArcCZ5tON4CO43CGN2Gra2u9d5V6C6ARisZgLcHvKN4LtnkGoIqHmLHj0ZoH-8EY_r6zhnNgmb2DIOfwC6iYe8JRpJDQSsjx4/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537%2F> HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.html<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1aste1pdAhq_TMFqsj5FriZl0Uu9f059LMSBJJnZqQV8xMWJnw9mkTR_sut4SqV4A8VXdSyu1ww4Z2J2gjs5GBNL61WGWNc_vpADz1cHfghH-SEa5EVH9VBgPFz8_Ew3N05VZTPteEm5fSDNjw_XFAR4zGVO162EDUHyhOAqZAusu5i-6fTmy4axI-u_ydLzKqM-O_Js9MmBNrLEoryJrgBB66uvGkEFJcfezAumeAFoCPxkE2aOqSRYvzCnsZkbnuoVWtt1RPY4-DHYLP63OrtDx3JK8Mcs0YORdR20d_Pw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.html> HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1REPzMDdSw__QNYdJu2_kLVewC2cr1haTsVsmIarmU-cprYlCco2gFbdcSX2pPVwrfkcM-fCQxOEmba-0NcdZQ8IR0Y_-IExINWk53AiyGysA7lIGTNK7YqmMbWN_SmcpSNs7U_EhZ3fF14yDoZcqVkZHSMj0Kr8uRcPKB-IX3iArW3ZIayS2xHbCk3IxP-9otAp-K4QUd5jSUl9HByZpvm-6VrZ3dLoQtnXneeWnlpSlq0EPIiuZHgTTJTGChawd9d8MAHlybuEab0icvIWBx1HmwSiVVT-nn9ryTJCBqjM/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537> Abstract: This document discusses client implementation issues relating to RFC 9537, “Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response”. The considerations in this document have arisen from problems raised by two separate teams attempting to implement RFC 9537 in both an RDAP web client and an RDAP command line client. Some of these problems may be insurmountable, leaving portions of RFC 9537 non-interoperable between clients and servers, while other problems place a high degree of complexity upon clients. The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
