> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Newton <a...@arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 6:03 PM
> To: i...@ietf.org; aamelni...@fastmail.fm; Hollenbeck, Scott
> <shollenb...@verisign.com>
> 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)
>
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 17:34 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Isn't this exactly what the description attribute is used for? At present
> the IANA has a different description for each registry. Perhaps we should
> just update the text to indicate that the IANA should describe the
> registry as being for object tags.
>
> Current values in IANA:
> dns.json: "description": "RDAP bootstrap file for Domain Name System
> registrations"
> ipv4.json: "description": "RDAP bootstrap file for IPv4 address
> allocations"
> ipv6.json: "description": "RDAP bootstrap file for IPv6 address
> allocations"
> asn.json: "description": "RDAP bootstrap file for Autonomous System Number
> allocations"
Indeed. The example registry included in Section 3 includes this value:
"description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values"
Would "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider object tags" be a better
description?
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
