On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, at 11:03 PM, Andy Newton wrote:
> 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"
Hmm, it looks like this field is human readable, so I didn't expect it to be
matched by software. But this might work.
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
