> -----Original Message----- > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:13 AM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis Last Call Comments > Channeled from draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings > > Marc Blanchet recently asked me if I had reviewed draft-blanchet-regext- > rdap-deployfindings as I edited the 7482bis and 7483bis documents. I missed > that, so I thought I'd do it in the context of the working group last call > for the > two documents. Here's my summary for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis: > > There are two sections in draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings that talk > about RFC 7482: 4.1 (percent encoding of the ":" character in IPv6 addresses) > and 6.1 (search patterns). 7482bis notes that the structure of the IP address > formats are described in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986, so I think the document is > fine with respect to acceptable formats. For what it's worth, 3986 explicitly > notes that "URI producing applications must not use percent-encoding in > host unless it is used to represent a UTF-8 character sequence". I interpret > this to mean "RDAP queries MUST NOT include percent-encoded ":" > characters in IPv6 addresses". That's probably worth talking about is some > other place if there are clients sending such queries as reported by Marc. > > Section 6.1 describes an issue with a confusing use of the term "search > pattern" for an IP address query term that isn't really a search pattern. That > should be fixed as follows: > > OLD: > "ZZZZ is a search pattern representing an IPv4" > "Syntax: domains?nsIp=<domain search pattern>" > "YYYY is a search pattern representing an IPv4" > "Syntax: nameservers?ip=<nameserver search pattern> > > NEW: > "ZZZZ is an IPv4" > "Syntax: domains?nsIp=<nameserver IP address>" > "YYYY is an IPv4" > "Syntax: nameservers?ip=<nameserver IP address>" > > Is there anything here that requires additional discussion? If not, I'll make > the > changes described above. Thanks, Marc.
I just submitted an update (-02) that addresses these corrections. Note that the fixes were in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, not 6.1 as described above. With this update I believe the document is ready to start WG last call a discussed during our meeting at IETF-108. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
