> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelni...@fastmail.fm>
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 1:15 PM
> To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-...@ietf.org; Gould, James
> <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext-cha...@ietf.org; Gould, James
> <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
> object-tag-04: (with DISCUSS)
>
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a fine document, but I have one possible issue that I would like
> to quickly discuss before recommending approval of this document:
>
> Looking at the example in Section 3:
>
> {
> "version": "1.0",
> "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
> "description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values",
> "services": [
> [
> ["YYYY"],
>
> Values like YYYY are not distinguishable from TLD values registered in
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-dns/rdap-dns.xhtml>. All numeric
> values (ASNs or ranges of ASNs), as well as IPv4/IPv6 addresses are
> syntactically distinguishable from TLDs, but values registered in this
> document are not. Is this a problem? My concern is about fetching JSON
> from <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-dns/rdap-dns.xhtml> and
> misinterpreting it as valid data from the registry established in this
> document or vice versa.
Thanks for the review, Alexey. No, I don't think it's an issue. The registries
are distinct because they're designed to be associated with different query
types. A client should use the different RDAP bootstrap registries (there are
currently 4; this one would make 5) in such a way that that they're directly
mapped to specific types of queries. Domain name queries, for example, should
be mapped to values in the Domain Name Space registry. Values in this registry
should be mapped to other types of RDAP queries, like entity values. The
processing flow would look something like this:
Receive query
Determine query type
if {query type == (domain|AS|IPv4 address|IPv6 address|entity)} then {extract
registry key; map to appropriate bootstrap registry; retrieve bootstrap value}
else {no bootstrap is possible}
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
