On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, at 10:17, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > FYI, folks. Does anyone have any thoughts on the better path forward?
Between: 1) Publish errata for 8521 noting that "The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484" should be changed to " The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is _modeled after_ the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484", or and 2) Publish errata for 8521 to change the contact stuff, and then work with IANA to remove the contact values. I think it depends on the need or not to have contact information. If needed: - then option 1 applies, but I would think you need a little more explanation than just "is _modeled after_"; this is still probably the faster solution - or contact information could be handled elsewhere in the document, with inspiration from other RDAP specifications, using "remarks", "notices" or even "links" but that would need far more changes including to 8521 and is really more a 8521-bis than an errata. Or else just considering that for any URL given it can still be used with the "help" query case, which should be enough as the first step to know "who" is behind a given RDAP URL. If not needed: - option 2 is better but more work. Maybe interoperability issues for anyone already implementing this RFC? I think the contact information comes because of ยง3.1 So it seems useful to have, but then why not say contact information is useful for all other bootstrap documents (domain, IPv4, IPv6, etc.) also? This would mean an 7484-bis, so again quite some work. What do people having implemented RFC 8521 think about that? -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
