REQUIREMENT: depth of representation

[pawel-kow]

Some requirements proposal for data representations

[mwullink]

i think there needs to be more discussion about the desirability of having bulk operations. the problem with bulk ops is that these are harder to scale than small single requests. we suggested changing the epp check command from allowing multiple domains, to only allow inga single domain.

[mwullink]

i like the idea having a way to signal for a different response detail level. not sure how far this should go. maybe allow for "profiles" so a server can decide what to return? then the profile needs to be discoverable? or an extension?

[mario-loffredo]

The client may want to request different depth of data representations, depending of its use-case:

Minimal representation (like ID, or ID+name)
Full representation (all data of object itself)
Full representation + dereferenced referrals (for example domain with contact and host details)

Is it related to searching for multiple objects?
If so, shouldn't we first discuss whether RPP should offer search functionality like RDAP? Also, note that partial response has already been addressed in RDAP by RFC8982.
Otherwise, requesting for a partial response in lookups makes little sense to me.

[pawel-kow]

The client may want to request different depth of data representations, depending of its use-case:

Minimal representation (like ID, or ID+name)
Full representation (all data of object itself)
Full representation + dereferenced referrals (for example domain with contact and host details)

Is it related to searching for multiple objects? If so, shouldn't we first discuss whether RPP should offer search functionality like RDAP? Also, note that partial response has already been addressed in RDAP by RFC8982. Otherwise, requesting for a partial response in lookups makes little sense to me.

@mario-loffredo it is for now very generic and possibly applicable to different use-cases, as I also put in the text:

- Different representations may be requested in different contexts:
    - GET request to the resource itself
    - GET request to get a collection of objects
    - responses to PUT/POST/PATCH requests

So yes, partial response for a lookup (GET) of a single resource may make little sense, but partial response to an update (PATCH) or create (PUT/POST) may make a lot of sense to the client.

How to deal with bulk/listing/search use-cases is open and up to discussion. If WG decides not to place it in RPP, then the requirement would be void same way.

[OR13]

I suggest moving any WG activities to the working group GitHub and posting them to the mailing list.

And archiving this repo.

[pawel-kow]

I suggest moving any WG activities to the working group GitHub and posting them to the mailing list.

And archiving this repo.

Make sense to me. This is a discussion point for WG session to decide on the details therefore doing changes just before discussion would be counterproductive IMHO.