Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [[ comments ]] [ section 2.3 ] * My current understanding is that it's not possible to request a sort by IP address in general (i.e. without regard to IP address family). Otherwise, since some IPv6 addresses (admittedly not any within the current 2000::/3 GUA space) might be numerically less then some IPv4 addresses, I think there would probably need to be some text around relative ordering between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses regardless of numerical equivalent values. But again: my reading is that sort can only be by ipV4 or ipV6 (and not just some generalized "ip" parameter), so this shouldn't be necessary. [[ nits ]] [ section 2.1 ] * s/value of sort "parameter"/value of the "sort" parameter/ perhaps? [ section 2.4 ] * I think the cursor value "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MAo=" might decode to 'offset=100,limit=50\n' (with a trailing newline). The base64 encoding without the trailing newline might be 'b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MA==', but someone should double-check me on that. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
