Hello Mario, Scott,
Please find my feedback on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/ below:
1. Agree with the overall usefulness of this draft to cover the
missing/needed search scenarios.
2. Not sure if we need to specifically mention in the draft but just noting
that Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) also implement the domains search for
their reverse DNS zones. :) Something to consider for the Introduction section?
3. Why introduce the keyword “reverse” in the search path? Is it to
distinguish from the related reverse search scenarios (e.g. domains by nsIp)
defined in 7843bis? In light of introducing a new extension for this draft, the
“reverse” keyword may be redundant.
4. Instead of defining the generic reverse search path
{resource-type}/reverse/{role}?{property}=<search pattern>, would it be better
to take a specific search path, say domains versus nameservers versus entities,
and define the new query parameters (that fill the current search gaps) for
each of them section-by-section? Please ignore this comment if the intent here
is to pivot around the roles defined in the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry.
5. Knowing that it gets more complex but is it possible that folks may need
to pass multiple query parameters for conjunctive criteria? If so,
{resource-type}/reverse/{role}?{property}=<search pattern> may need to evolve
to account for multiple query parameters.
6. Though not directly related with this draft, just an observation from
7483bis that there the IP Network and Autonomous System Number objects can be
listed in an entity (an org) lookup response but not the Domain objects. Not
sure if this was by design?
7. May be just me but found the abstract a bit verbose. Move some of it to
the Introduction section?
Thanks,
Jasdip
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
