Subject: [regext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13

From: Joel Jaeggli via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 15:50:07 -0700

Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document on behalf of the the operations directorate.

This document appears ready.

I would observe that the document describes fairly wide latitude with respect
to what a server could do with with this facility, yet it's largely posed as
facility for the client to reduce the data returned to it. A client that is
authorized asking for less data then it is authorized for poses no real
challenges however if s the document described one uses authorization level to
determine what to include in the partial response the implementations need to
be careful about how the implement such a control to prevent information
leakage (what fielsd are omitted could tell you significant things about your
authorization level for example. These server implementation  considerations
seem outside the scope of this document, and client requests for limited fields
in a result don't have this property.

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:02:34 +0200

Hi Joel,

thanks so much for your review. Please find my comments inline.

> in a result don't have this property.

The mapping between the content returned and the available field sets 
for the given user profiles should be trasparently described in 
out-of-band documents (e.g. RDAP profiles).

I think the main issue for a server is to return the right information 
according to the user grants but this doesn't depend on whether the 
server implements partial response or not.

What is achieved through this feature is that servers can implement a 
more flexible strategy than returning always the full response, even if 
the full response is tailored on the requestor.

As you rightly stated in your review, some operational aspects (e.g. the 
fields contained in the "brief" response) have been purposefully left 
undefined because the WG considered they should be profile dependent.

Anyway, a non exhaustive list of possible partial response 
implementations are described in "Security Considerations" section.

Hope my response could contribute to shed more light on this document.

Best,

Mario

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo