[gtld-tech] RDAP question

[Brian Mountford]

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 at 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 at 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 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/20160809/e0792cc6/attachment.html>