Subject: [regext] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: (with DISCUSS)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:22:33 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably I'm just not properly aware of details in the referenced RFCs, but
I had a few questions that came to mind.

[ section 2 ]

* How are multiple keys encoded in a fieldSet parameter value?  An example
  would be welcome.

* What should be done with a query containing an empty fieldSet?
  E.g. ...?...&foo=bar&fieldSet=&baaz=quux

[ section 2.1 ]

* How much data transfer is actually saved if servers are supposed to send
  these subsetting_metadata structures in every response?  Are we just
  swapping data bytes transferred for meta-data bytes transfered?

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 14:39:39 +0200

Hi Erik,

thanks a lot for your review. Plase find my comments inline.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
[ML] In my opinion this case is considered among the unsupported 
fieldSet values producing a Bad Request response code as stated in 
section 5.
>    E.g. ...?...&foo=bar&fieldSet=&baaz=quux
[ML} This case is considered in section 5 too.
>    swapping data bytes transferred for meta-data bytes transfered?

[ML] Not all the responses. Just the responses to search queries which 
are those returning an array of results.

In general, in those responses, the payload due to the metadata 
information is considerably lower than the payload due to the array of 
results.

It wouldn't make sense to provide the subsetting_metadata object as part 
of a lookup response just because, in this case, the sizes of metadata 
and relevant information would be comparable.

Best,

Mario

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 11:16:44 -0700

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 5:42 AM Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

Ah, yes, thank you.

> are those returning an array of results.

Ah, I see, yes a more awake and attentive reading of:

   Therefore, servers implementing the query parameter described in this
   specification SHOULD provide additional information in their
   responses about the available field sets.

makes sense.

Thank you.  That clears it all up for me.