Yeah, if nobody cares that strongly then an errata will suffice. Perhaps we can do something about this in a set of bis versions of the specs if/when that comes about.
-andy On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:05 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > There've been no other contributions to this discussion, so I'm leaning > towards the path of least work to address the issue Patrick identified. That > means errata for 8521 to note that the structure of the registry is based on > the structure from 7484, but it includes the additional contact information. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:02 AM > > To: regext@ietf.org > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and > > RFC 7484 > > > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
