<div dir="ltr">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.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andy@hxr.us" target="_blank">andy@hxr.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My interpretation is that it says "response", and a single RDAP<br>
response can hold many objects. Therefore this should go into<br>
"notices".<br>
<br>
Also I hope ICANN updates that web page once REGEXT has the EPP->RDAP<br>
response code mappings done (and they should point to the IANA<br>
registry for informative purposes).<br>
<br>
-andy<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Brian Mountford <<a href="mailto:mountford@google.com">mountford@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> That makes sense, and many of the required boilerplate remarks are the same<br>
> for every domain, so putting them at the domain level rather than the<br>
> overall search results level would be duplicative. But on the other hand,<br>
> duplicative is not necessarily unwarranted: including boilerplate in every<br>
> RDAP response is itself duplicative already, and that is mandated. So I'm<br>
> trying to make sure I understand what ICANN has in mind exactly.<br>
><br>
> For instance, this requirement:<br>
><br>
> 1.5.18. A domain name RDAP response MUST contain a remarks member with a<br>
> title “EPP Status Codes”, a description containing the string “For more<br>
> information on domain status codes, please visit <a href="https://icann.org/epp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://icann.org/epp</a>” and<br>
> a links member with the <a href="https://icann.org/epp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://icann.org/epp</a> URL.<br>
><br>
> When returning a response to a domain search, should the remarks member<br>
> appear in each of the domains returned in the response, or should it appear<br>
> one level up? The latter is less duplicative, but it also means that the<br>
> JSON for a domain will be different depending on whether it is a response to<br>
> a direct domain lookup (in which case it will have the boilerplate remark)<br>
> or a domain search query (in which case it will not).<br>
><br>
> Brian<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andrew Newton <<a href="mailto:andy@hxr.us">andy@hxr.us</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Brian Mountford via gtld-tech<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org">gtld-tech@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Another RDAP question as it applies to the operational profile.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > RFC 7483 4.3. Notices and Remarks<br>
>> ><br>
>> > While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a<br>
>> > response,<br>
>> > the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > For domain, nameserver and entity search results, should boilerplate<br>
>> > remarks<br>
>> > required by the operational profile appear in each constituent object,<br>
>> > or at<br>
>> > the top level?<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> I can't answer for the "ICANN way", but I can tell you what we had in<br>
>> mind from a standards perspective. The individual remarks on an object<br>
>> or intended to be remarks about the object. The notices were intended<br>
>> to be about the service or response as a whole.<br>
>><br>
>> -andy<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>