[gtld-tech] RDAP question

[Brian Mountford]

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 at hxr.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Brian Mountford via gtld-tech
> <gtld-tech at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20160803/179e4573/attachment.html>