Another RDAP question as it applies to the operational profile. *RFC 7483 4.3. Notices and Remarks* While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response. For domain, nameserver and entity search results, should boilerplate remarks required by the operational profile appear in each constituent object, or at the top level? Thanks. Brian Mountford Google Registry
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Brian Mountford via gtld-tech <gtld-tech@icann.org> wrote:
Another RDAP question as it applies to the operational profile.
RFC 7483 4.3. Notices and Remarks
While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response.
For domain, nameserver and entity search results, should boilerplate remarks required by the operational profile appear in each constituent object, or at the top level?
I can't answer for the "ICANN way", but I can tell you what we had in mind from a standards perspective. The individual remarks on an object or intended to be remarks about the object. The notices were intended to be about the service or response as a whole. -andy
That makes sense, and many of the required boilerplate remarks are the same for every domain, so putting them at the domain level rather than the overall search results level would be duplicative. But on the other hand, duplicative is not necessarily unwarranted: including boilerplate in every RDAP response is itself duplicative already, and that is mandated. So I'm trying to make sure I understand what ICANN has in mind exactly. For instance, this requirement: 1.5.18. A domain name RDAP response MUST contain a remarks member with a title “EPP Status Codes”, a description containing the string “For more information on domain status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp” and a links member with the https://icann.org/epp URL. When returning a response to a domain search, should the remarks member appear in each of the domains returned in the response, or should it appear one level up? The latter is less duplicative, but it also means that the JSON for a domain will be different depending on whether it is a response to a direct domain lookup (in which case it will have the boilerplate remark) or a domain search query (in which case it will not). Brian On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Brian Mountford via gtld-tech <gtld-tech@icann.org> wrote:
Another RDAP question as it applies to the operational profile.
RFC 7483 4.3. Notices and Remarks
While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response.
For domain, nameserver and entity search results, should boilerplate remarks required by the operational profile appear in each constituent object, or at the top level?
I can't answer for the "ICANN way", but I can tell you what we had in mind from a standards perspective. The individual remarks on an object or intended to be remarks about the object. The notices were intended to be about the service or response as a whole.
-andy
My interpretation is that it says "response", and a single RDAP response can hold many objects. Therefore this should go into "notices". Also I hope ICANN updates that web page once REGEXT has the EPP->RDAP response code mappings done (and they should point to the IANA registry for informative purposes). -andy On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Brian Mountford <mountford@google.com> wrote:
That makes sense, and many of the required boilerplate remarks are the same for every domain, so putting them at the domain level rather than the overall search results level would be duplicative. But on the other hand, duplicative is not necessarily unwarranted: including boilerplate in every RDAP response is itself duplicative already, and that is mandated. So I'm trying to make sure I understand what ICANN has in mind exactly.
For instance, this requirement:
1.5.18. A domain name RDAP response MUST contain a remarks member with a title “EPP Status Codes”, a description containing the string “For more information on domain status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp” and a links member with the https://icann.org/epp URL.
When returning a response to a domain search, should the remarks member appear in each of the domains returned in the response, or should it appear one level up? The latter is less duplicative, but it also means that the JSON for a domain will be different depending on whether it is a response to a direct domain lookup (in which case it will have the boilerplate remark) or a domain search query (in which case it will not).
Brian
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Brian Mountford via gtld-tech <gtld-tech@icann.org> wrote:
Another RDAP question as it applies to the operational profile.
RFC 7483 4.3. Notices and Remarks
While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response.
For domain, nameserver and entity search results, should boilerplate remarks required by the operational profile appear in each constituent object, or at the top level?
I can't answer for the "ICANN way", but I can tell you what we had in mind from a standards perspective. The individual remarks on an object or intended to be remarks about the object. The notices were intended to be about the service or response as a whole.
-andy
The RFC specifically says a remarks member, not a notices member. So it seems pretty clear that they want a remark. It's just where the remark goes that's the question. In the absence of any authoritative pronouncement from ICANN, I guess I'll go ahead and put the remark at the top level for domain searches as well. On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
My interpretation is that it says "response", and a single RDAP response can hold many objects. Therefore this should go into "notices".
Also I hope ICANN updates that web page once REGEXT has the EPP->RDAP response code mappings done (and they should point to the IANA registry for informative purposes).
-andy
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Brian Mountford <mountford@google.com> wrote:
That makes sense, and many of the required boilerplate remarks are the same for every domain, so putting them at the domain level rather than the overall search results level would be duplicative. But on the other hand, duplicative is not necessarily unwarranted: including boilerplate in every RDAP response is itself duplicative already, and that is mandated. So I'm trying to make sure I understand what ICANN has in mind exactly.
For instance, this requirement:
1.5.18. A domain name RDAP response MUST contain a remarks member with a title “EPP Status Codes”, a description containing the string “For more information on domain status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp” and a links member with the https://icann.org/epp URL.
When returning a response to a domain search, should the remarks member appear in each of the domains returned in the response, or should it appear one level up? The latter is less duplicative, but it also means that the JSON for a domain will be different depending on whether it is a response to a direct domain lookup (in which case it will have the boilerplate remark) or a domain search query (in which case it will not).
Brian
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Brian Mountford via gtld-tech <gtld-tech@icann.org> wrote:
Another RDAP question as it applies to the operational profile.
RFC 7483 4.3. Notices and Remarks
While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response.
For domain, nameserver and entity search results, should boilerplate remarks required by the operational profile appear in each constituent object, or at the top level?
I can't answer for the "ICANN way", but I can tell you what we had in mind from a standards perspective. The individual remarks on an object or intended to be remarks about the object. The notices were intended to be about the service or response as a whole.
-andy
participants (2)
-
Andrew Newton -
Brian Mountford