Subject: [regext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:19:36 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: No Objection

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is simple to read and appears
to address an important problem.

I have only one non blocking comment about section 4, is a "short" response
specified in other documents or should it be better described in this document ?

Regards

-éric

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 15:08:33 +0200

Hi Eric,

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

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/

[ML] It should be defined in other documents.

Originally, based on the assumption that an RDAP response will match the 
corresponding WHOIS response provided by a given registration data 
discovery service, I had defined in 
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-00 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/00/> 
a "short" response including those fields identified in RFC7485 as 
mostly supported.

However, the WG recommended to separate the technology from its 
operational aspects which are usually described in out-band documents 
(i.e. the so called "RDAP Profiles" like 
https://www.icann.org/gtld-rdap-profile) .

Anyway, It's reasonable to expect that the short response provided by 
the RDAP servers will be very similar for a couple of reasons:

- the set of most relevant information for each object class is well 
known as also demostrated by the analysis in RFC7485;

- the gTLDs are considerably more than the ccTLDs so a "short" response 
defined in the gTLD RDAP profile would become the reference one de-facto;

The "short" response provided by the .it RDAP public test server is 
decribed here 
<https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/doc/README.html#partial-response-queries>.

Hope my answer could contribute to give you a more comprehensive 
overview of the rationale behind the document.

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