Hi Andy,
thanks for your feedback. My comments are below.
Il 23/01/2019 16:30, Andy Newton ha scritto:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:04:20PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on the mailinglist, we have selected 5 documents that people most
want to be added to our milestone list.
To be able to to that the documents should first be adopted as working group
documents.
This is a formal adoption request for draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view.
Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, be a
document shepherd, etc.
First, I wish to thank Mario and his co-authors for opening this line of work.
I have a few comments on this draft (and I'll let the chairs determine if I'm
agreeing with adoption or not).
1. From an operational point of few, I think there maybe a need differentiate
the support of the different searches. In my (limited opinion), the requirement
to support reverse searches by handle and email address are different than the
requirement to support reverse search of name and physical address. Therefore,
I think operators and policy people need a way to differentiate the various
searches in their documentation. Perhaps this can be done by breaking the
searches into multiple drafts and therefore registry A can say the support RFC
XXXX while registry B can say they support RFC YYYY. Just a thought.
Honestly, I don't see any difference but, anyway, we can discuss about
that.
Another point of discussion could be if we need other reverse search
capabilities not limited to the classic domains-entities relationship
and currently uncovered by RDAP.
2. I don't know if we want to tackle the issue of distributing reverse
searches. But that is an issue here.
What do you mean exactly for "distributing search"? Do you mean "across
different RDAP servers" ?
3. The complexity of the query parameters makes me wonder if we should consider
another mechanism for these more complex extensions... One such mechanism would
be a general extension of using POST with GraphQL, and then doing profiles of
reverse search (and other things) on top of that.
I have thought to the use of a POST method as well as to GraphQL but I
didn't want to propose something outside the constraints of RFC7482 :-)
I think this proposal is related to the other two drafts (partial
response, sorting-and-paging) and to the implementation of more complex
queries.
Regards,
Mario
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Servizi Internet e Sviluppo Tecnologico
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
E-Mail: mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
