[gtld-tech] Question about the ICANN RDAP Profile

[Gustavo Lozano]

Hello Brian,

The type is defined in the RDAP JSON Values IANA Registry, therefore the
values defined in the IANA Registry shall be used in the profile.
Unfortunately, this issue escaped the multiple reviews, this is how I think
the text should have been.

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
"result set truncated due to {authorization|excessive load|unexplainable
reasons}².

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
"object truncated due to {authorization|excessive load|unexplainable
reasons}".
Please let me know if this answers your question.

Please let me know if this answer your questions.

Regards,
Gustavo

From:  Brian Mountford <mountford at google.com>
Date:  Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:27
To:  Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org>
Cc:  "gtld-tech at icann.org" <gtld-tech at icann.org>, Nick Felt
<nickfelt at google.com>
Subject:  Re: [gtld-tech] Question about the ICANN RDAP Profile

> 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[iana
>> .org] 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_assignment
>> s_rdap-2Djson-2Dvalues_rdap-2Djson-2Dvalues.xhtml&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl
>> l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=v
>> twyFfA81xV0cTosC7o-WxUrqtpqRTINcPmxNqs5I_M&s=WFPFF2uvhVt8h8_QhrWc8Yl3du_szmA5
>> 70U0U0ucETs&e=> .
>>  
>> 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-e
>>> n[icann.org] 
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource
>>> s_pages_rdap-2Doperational-2Dprofile-2D2016-2D07-2D26-2Den&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3
>>> PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgA
>>> gfmwfE0&m=vtwyFfA81xV0cTosC7o-WxUrqtpqRTINcPmxNqs5I_M&s=Xrer_A8tR5CSkYif9lsG
>>> vilIrlbKy3aMH0hNtyxst7A&e=> ):
>>> 
>>> 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/20161013/9c5c2cf8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20161013/9c5c2cf8/smime.p7s>