[gtld-tech] Question about the ICANN RDAP Profile

[Brian Mountford]

Yes, that's very helpful. Thanks.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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}”.
>
> 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_assignments_rdap-2Djson-2Dvalues_rdap-2Djson-2Dvalues.xhtml&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=vtwyFfA81xV0cTosC7o-WxUrqtpqRTINcPmxNqs5I_M&s=WFPFF2uvhVt8h8_QhrWc8Yl3du_szmA570U0U0ucETs&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-en[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_rdap-2Doperational-2Dprofile-2D2016-2D07-2D26-2Den&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=vtwyFfA81xV0cTosC7o-WxUrqtpqRTINcPmxNqs5I_M&s=Xrer_A8tR5CSkYif9lsGvilIrlbKy3aMH0hNtyxst7A&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/20161013/421c0105/attachment.html>