Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, Referencing the 'strict' model would indicate that the RFC language is clear, and we've gone through the language in the RFCs in detail in prior messages on the mailing list. There is no language in the RFCs that would make approach A, B, or C non-compliant. There is a mix of language

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Jasdip, please find my comments embedded. Il 31/05/2022 22:20, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: Hi Mario, Few comments, and one suggestion. Thanks, Jasdip On 5/30/22, 4:50 AM, "Mario Loffredo" wrote: Hi Jasdip, the current approach appears unpractical to me as it results in

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 07:49:18PM +, Gould, James wrote: > I'm not exactly sure where the term 'strict' model is coming from, > which I assume is associated with Approach A "Tight Coupling". That's right. See my earlier mail at

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Mario, Few comments, and one suggestion. Thanks, Jasdip On 5/30/22, 4:50 AM, "Mario Loffredo" wrote: Hi Jasdip, the current approach appears unpractical to me as it results in managing all the changes in the same manner regardless their scope. [JS] Consistency is the key

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, I'm not exactly sure where the term 'strict' model is coming from, which I assume is associated with Approach A "Tight Coupling". I believe the RFCs are sufficiently unclear to support all three approaches discussed thus far (A, B, and C). I added “Approach C – decoupled” to the table

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Mario, On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 09:51:21AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Il 29/05/2022 06:42, Tom Harrison ha scritto: >> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:41:27PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: >>> Think the matter is that even the possible backwards-compatible changes >>> would result in being hardly

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Jasdip, the current approach appears unpractical to me as it results in managing all the changes in the same manner regardless their scope. A unified apporach is always advisable except in those cases where it results in adding complexity where it is unneeded. And I suspect  that this

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Tom, please find my comments embedded. Il 29/05/2022 06:42, Tom Harrison ha scritto: Hi Mario, On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:41:27PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: Think the matter is that even the possible backwards-compatible changes would result in being hardly backwards-compatible. Let te

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Mario, On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:41:27PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Think the matter is that even the possible backwards-compatible changes > would result in being hardly backwards-compatible. > > Let te me give an example to make myself clear and move the discussion on a > practical

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hello James, Yes, I mean Approach A as the current approach. As was noted earlier, there is no version semantics for extension identifiers; they are opaque. One might as well call "ext0", "ext1", etc for an extension "abc", "def", etc. Agreed we haven't yet had a single case of extension

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Jansdip, I'm not clear what you mean by the current approach, unless you mean Approach A. The RFCs are consistently unclear when it comes to versioning. There are no new versions of extensions that has triggered the use case we're discussing. Approach A doesn't really handle versioning

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi. I'd contend that unlike the proposed approach(es), current approach: - guarantees no collisions under every change scenario (not just optional new field) - guarantees sufficient transition time for clients when moving to the next version of an extension (without requiring any additional

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Mario, [ML] My only objection to Approach C is that every new version would result in registering a new extension identifier. I would opt for a less verbose solution, if any. I'm not aware of the plan for new versions of the existing extensions, so I don't view it as a scalability

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi james, my comment inline. Il 27/05/2022 14:43, Gould, James ha scritto: Mario, Thank you for providing an example of the complexity of versioning that is associated with tightly coupling the RDAP compliance value with the set of prefixes. Unfortunately, RDAP doesn't include the same

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Mario, Thank you for providing an example of the complexity of versioning that is associated with tightly coupling the RDAP compliance value with the set of prefixes. Unfortunately, RDAP doesn't include the same sort of version negotiation that exists in EPP with the use of XML namespace URIs

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Tom, sorry for the delay in replying but yesterday I took a day off :-) Please find my comments below. Il 26/05/2022 00:33, Tom Harrison ha scritto: Hi Mario, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 08:21:45PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: I'm concerned about injecting the version information into

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Mario, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 08:21:45PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > I'm concerned about injecting the version information into > prefixes/identifiers as  I see some drawbacks in dealing with non-breaking > changes, which hopefully should be the majority and usually don't require to >

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:27 PM Gould, James wrote: > > For draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted, I view the registration of the extension > identifier “redacted_level_0_3” (target of “redacted_level_1” after WGLC) > that is returned in RDAP Conformance as meeting the signaling needs. The >

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments 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 Scott, I'm concerned about injecting the version

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Scott ha scritto: *From:* Gould, James *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:23 AM *To:* Hollenbeck, Scott ; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; t...@apnic.net *Cc:* regext@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Scott, My comments are embedded below with a

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

From: Gould, James Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:23 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; t...@apnic.net Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Scott, My comments are embedded below with a “JG – “ prefix

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

ednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:10 AM To: James Gould , "mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it" , "t...@apnic.net" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments From: Gould, James Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 8:49 AM To: Hol

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

From: Gould, James Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 8:49 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; t...@apnic.net Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Scott, If the authors of 9083 feel that “lunarNIC_level_0” should

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

eck, Scott" Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:07 AM To: James Gould , "mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it" , "t...@apnic.net" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments From: Gould, James Sent: Tuesday, M

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

From: Gould, James Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:37 PM To: mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; t...@apnic.net Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Approach A – “tight coupling” and Approach B “lack of tight coupling

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

:02 AM To: James Gould , "t...@apnic.net" Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Hi, please find my thoughts below. Il 23/05/2022 21:26, Gould, James ha scritto: Tom,

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

From: regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:02 AM To: "Gould, James" , "t...@apnic.net" Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi, please find my thoughts below. Il 23/05/2022 21:26, Gould, James ha scritto: Tom, In reviewing the thread below, I'll summarize my thoughts below that goes along with my response with Approach C to Jasdip: 1. It looks like there is consensus that the existing language in the RDAP

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi. Please find my input below. Thanks, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of "Gould, James" Date: Monday, May 23, 2022 at 3:27 PM To: "t...@apnic.net" Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes,

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 07:26:39PM +, Gould, James wrote: > In reviewing the thread below, I'll summarize my thoughts below that > goes along with my response with Approach C to Jasdip: Thanks for this summary. > 1. It looks like there is consensus that the existing language in

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

>> >> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 01:01:37PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Tom Harrison >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:44 PM >>>> To: Gould, James >>>> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org >

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, In reviewing the thread below, I'll summarize my thoughts below that goes along with my response with Approach C to Jasdip: 1. It looks like there is consensus that the existing language in the RDAP RFCs is unclear and there is a mix of cases that exist in the RDAP Extension

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

> -Original Message- > From: Tom Harrison > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 12:19 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: Gould, James ; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON > Values, and URI Path Segments > > Caution:

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 12:19 AM Tom Harrison wrote: > For new path segments, see section 5 of RFC 9082: > > Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a > unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For > example, a custom entity path

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 01:01:37PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Harrison >> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:44 PM >> To: Gould, James >> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: R

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 8:44 PM Tom Harrison wrote: > > RFC 7483 was pretty clear about this: > > When custom JSON values are inserted into responses, conformance > to those custom specifications MUST use a string prefixed with the > appropriate identifier from the IANA RDAP

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

> -Original Message- > From: Tom Harrison > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:44 PM > To: Gould, James > Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON > Values, and URI Path Segments [SAH] snip >

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 06:36:59PM +, Gould, James wrote: > On 5/19/22, 2:35 AM, "Tom Harrison" wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:59:05AM +, Gould, James wrote: >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:12:16AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote: The uniqueness aspect of the registry is

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, Thank you for your detailed response to help the discussion move forward. I provide my feedback embedded with a "JG - " prefix. I'm pulling the proposal included in the mailing list message (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/GUNzKuVIFx7FHu3DuhS0Nn_zppk/) into this thread

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Tom, please find my comments below. Il 19/05/2022 08:35, Tom Harrison ha scritto: Hi James, On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:59:05AM +, Gould, James wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:12:16AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote: The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix'

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:59:05AM +, Gould, James wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:12:16AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote: >> The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix' >> part. I'm more concerned with the confusing way in which the various >> documents

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

> -Original Message- > From: Tom Harrison > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:12 PM > To: Gould, James > Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and > URI Path Segments [SAH] [snip] &g

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix' part. I'm more concerned with the confusing way in which the various documents interact in this respect and the fact that two different 'types' of values will be registered (advisedly) from now on. I

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:59:35PM +, Gould, James wrote: > On 5/17/22, 8:56 AM, "Tom Harrison" wrote: >> I think this approach could work in principle, but I don't think it's >> in accordance with the current text: >> >> - RFC 7480 has "[t]he extension identifier is used as a

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, Thank you for your thoughts on the proposal. I include my responses embedded below prefixed with "JG - ". -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 5/17/22, 8:56 AM, "Tom

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, (Replying to the original mail, but taking into account replies to it to date as well.) On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 03:44:01PM +, Gould, James wrote: > Scott and I discussed this offline, and below is a proposal for the > RDAP Extension Registry registrations that meets the language in

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

ponses embedded below prefixed by “JG2 - “. > > > > -- > > > > JG > > > > > > *James Gould *Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> >

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

, "regext@ietf.org" *Subject: *Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Jasdip, Thanks, I include my responses embedded below prefixed by “JG2 - “. -- JG *James Gould *Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Totally agree, Scott. Jasdip From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:55 PM To: "jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org" , Jasdip Singh , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Re: “the

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hello James, Please find my comments below. Thanks, Jasdip From: "Gould, James" Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:46 PM To: Jasdip Singh , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments From: regext on behalf of

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

mistakes, we shouldn’t repeat them. Scott From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 2:47 PM To: jasd...@arin.net; regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Caution: This email originated from outside

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

regext on behalf of Jasdip Singh Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:53 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Hello James, Scott, Should the rdapConformance string not to be an exact match for the exten

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

day, May 5, 2022 at 11:44 AM To: "shollenbeck=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Scott and I discussed this offline, and below is a proposal for the RDAP Extension Registry registr

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

From: James Gould Date: Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:42 AM To: "shollenbeck=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Scott, With the potential impacts to draft-ietf-regext-rda

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Scott, With the potential impacts to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted, I did a review of the referenced RFC language for the Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments. I provide my interpretation embedded below for consideration. To provide a concrete example of the proposed

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Jasdip and Scott, Il 01/05/2022 16:11, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: -Original Message- From: Jasdip Singh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:51 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments Caution

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

> -Original Message- > From: Jasdip Singh > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:51 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI > Path Segments > > Caution: This email originated from outs

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hello Scott, Please find my comments below. Thanks, Jasdip P.S. Thanks to Tom for his analysis of all current extensions. :) On 4/28/22, 10:27 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't unique to

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Thanks for clarifying, Scott. Mario Il 28/04/2022 16:27, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't unique to reverse search, I thought it best to start another topic. Section 6 of RFC 7480 introduces the concept of "an IANA

[regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't unique to reverse search, I thought it best to start another topic. Section 6 of RFC 7480 introduces the concept of "an IANA registry for prefixes used in JSON [RFC7159] data serialization and URI path segments (see