On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelni...@fastmail.fm>
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 12:21 PM
> > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; i...@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-...@ietf.org; Gould, James
> > <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext-cha...@ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-
> > rdap-object-tag-04: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > 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}
> >
> > Ok, so if you don't think that these JSON payloads are ever saved to files
> > and sent around via other means, than I will clear.
> > I am just thinking it that it would be better to have something in the
> > payload to allow them to be distinguishable. (E.g. an extra JSON
> > attribute.)
>
> We could do something like that, but for the sake of consistency it
> would mean modifying the existing registries, too.
You can, but you don't have to, you can just describe what lack of the new
attribute mean for old registry.
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
