Hi Andy, thanks a lot for your review and feedback.
Please find my comments inline prefixed with [ML]. Il 18/07/2025 13:33, Andrew Newton (andy) ha scritto:
Hi Mario, I read the latest rdap-jscontact draft and have the following comments. 1. The guidelines on experimental RFCs does not guarantee that an Experimental will be promoted to Proposed Standard if the experiment is successful. Even if the criteria set out in section 1.2 were met, IETF consensus is still required to move rdap-jscontact to PS. In other words, the text "A future update to this document may promote it to the Standards Track" should be struck as it seems to indicate that rdap-jscontact will go to PS if the criteria are met and documented in an I-D.
[ML] OK. Does the following rephrasing sound better ? A future update of this document may lead to its re-evaluation for the Standards Track if ...
Instead, the experiment should focus on collecting feedback to inform a potential future promotion to PS. 2. I think the bar for success in section 1.2 is being set too high. rdap-jscontact already has more implementation experience than most specifications going to PS. Instead, I think the experiment should be about measuring how many servers and clients implement rdap-jscontact, and how many queries include a signal for rdap-jscontact. In other words, I don't think you should set a target level. It might be that we find 5% of queries support it and this working group could, in the future, deem that good enough. IMHO, 1% adoption is good enough.
[ML] That threshold was linked to the number of servers under observation. If the gTLD servers should be considered as well (see my response to point 3), I agree with you that 1% is good enough.
I guess the threshold value for clients is fine with you, isn't it?
3. Does item 1 in section 1.2 rule out gTLD RDAP? That's how I read it, but I am not sure that is the intent.
[ML] My main concern was ICANN's policy toward experimental RFCs. I mean, could the gTLD RDAP profile allow servers to optionally support JSContact as an experimental format?
I didn't think so. To have a chance of being promoted to PS, the JSContact format would need to be supported by as many servers as possible, but gTLD servers must conform to the gTLD RDAP profile, which is unlikely to allow support for the JSContact format until it is promoted to PS :-(
This potential circular dependency prompted the authors to exclude gTLD servers from those observed in this experiment.
We would be very happy if, once published as Experimental RFC, the JSContact format was mentioned in the gTLD RDAP profile as an optional extension.
4. Is it worth adding the qualifier "actively maintained" to item 2 of section 1.2? Otherwise, projects that are dead might hold back the adoption count.
[ML] Since we're dealing with open source clients, I'm not sure this change makes sense. Under some public licenses, an RDAP client could be forked and maintained in a local branch.
Also, I wonder how a client can be formally defined as "actively maintained."
5. I think it would be interesting to add a "noJcard" extension identifier to the experiment to see how many clients and queries explicitly want only jscontact.
[ML] The end of the transition process is signaled by a specific notice. Are you suggesting replacing it with an extension identifier in the rdapConformance array or providing both?
6. The use of notices in section 4.3 is not quite correct. The "title" property is being used as an identifier, but it is suppose to be human readable text that could be in a separate language. I think what you want is the "type" property, which takes a registered value.
[ML] Absolutely. I missed that. It's much better to register both "jCard sunset end" and "jCard deprecation" as new notice and remark types.
Best, Mario
-andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
-- Dott. Mario Loffredo Senior Technologist Technological Unit “Digital Innovation” Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) National Research Council (CNR) Address: Via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy Phone: +39.0503153497 Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
