Hi Scott,
I think the document should perhaps describe the problem that is being solved
(one level higher). In other words, why would a RDAP use need to do an entity
lookup if they don't know the registry the entity is related to. Perhaps I'm
missing something, in my mind a user would want to know details of a contact
after they have seen an RDAP output from a registry, so allegedly they would
know what server to query, no?
--
Francisco spekaing for myself
On 4/5/17, 7:45 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 10:40 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-
> 02.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
> Title : Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object
> Tagging
> Authors : Scott Hollenbeck
> Andrew Lee Newton
> Filename : draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-02.txt
> Pages : 11
> Date : 2017-04-05
>
> Abstract:
> The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
> can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
> domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The
> method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
> processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This
> limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
> types are typically unstructured. This document describes an
> operational practice that can be used to add structure to RDAP
> identifiers that makes it possible to identify the authoritative
> server for additional RDAP queries.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag/
FYI - this version changes the separator character from "@" (a reserved URI
character) to "~" (an unreserved URI character) with accompanying text updates.
Does anyone see any issues to address before I ask the chairs to see if the WG
is interested in adopting the document?
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
