[gtld-tech] Question about the ICANN RDAP Profile

[Brian Mountford]

Thanks. So should the message always be "Object truncated..." or "Response
truncated...", but never "Result set truncated..."? Or is there one
situation where a notice says "Response truncated...", and another where it
says "Result set truncated..."?

Also, the operational profile says "...unexplainable reason" (in the
singular). But the RDAP JSON Values spreadsheet to which you refer says
"...unexplainable reasons" (in the plural) in the first column. Which one
is correct?

Brian

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org>
wrote:

> Thank you Brain for pointing this out,
>
>
>
> You are correct, the object type values are inverted, and the object type
> for the remarks member should be of the form "object truncated .." as
> defined in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/
> rdap-json-values.xhtml.
>
>
>
> We plan to publish an errata addressing this issue.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gustavo
>
> From: <gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Brian Mountford via
> gtld-tech <gtld-tech at icann.org>
> Reply-To: Brian Mountford <mountford at google.com>
> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 08:09
> To: "gtld-tech at icann.org" <gtld-tech at icann.org>
> Cc: Nick Felt <nickfelt at google.com>
> Subject: [gtld-tech] Question about the ICANN RDAP Profile
>
> ICANN folks,
>
> I am working on implementing the required remarks and notifications for
> truncate RDAP responses. I see the following in the RDAP Profile document (
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-
> 26-en):
>
> 1.4.8. Truncated RDAP responses MUST contain a *notices* member
> describing the reason of the truncation. The *notices* object type MUST
> be of the form "Response truncated due to {authorization|load|unexplainable
> reason}".
>
> 1.4.9. Truncated RDAP objects MUST contain a *remarks* member describing
> the reason of the truncation. The *remarks* object type MUST be of the
> form "Result set truncated due to {authorization|load|unexplainable
> reason}".
> Something doesn't seem right to me. 1.4.9 requires a remark saying "Result
> set truncated", as if that was used when returning result sets that contain
> fewer results than there actually are because of sizing limits. But then
> that should be a notice, because it happens globally for the response. And
> yet it refers to "truncated RDAP objects" rather than result sets.
>
> Is it possible that you got the text confused, and that truncated result
> sets have a notice of the form "Result set truncated ...", while truncated
> objects have a remark of the form "Response truncated ..."?
>
> If that's not what's going on, can you elaborate with a couple examples? I
> can't figure out how it would work. Thanks.
>
> Brian
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20161011/ef22dab4/attachment.html>