The WGLC for this document was scheduled to end today. While there is
support to move the document forward there is one minor comment that has
been raised during the last call.
The chairs would like to hear from other working group members as to
what to do with this comment. Rather than close the last call and risk
another last call, we are extending this last call for another week. If
we can come to a consensus as to how to proceed before the end of last
call than the document can stay on track to be submitted to the IESG
after the last call.
The WG last call will end at close of business on Friday, 9 October
2020.
Here are the comments as seen on the mailing list. Please respond with
your suggestions regarding these two comments.
James Gould:
Yes, lumping the registrar object with the contact object under a single
RDAP entity object interface is the rub. We solved the problem in the
RDAP Profile, by supporting entity lookup by IANA ID (number) and
registrar name (string) for the registrar objects, and by ROID
(“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") for the contact objects. Where there is
overlap, which is registrar name (string) and ROID
((“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") the contact takes precedence. My
recommendation is to provide guidance in the section 3.1.5 "Entity Path
Segment Specification" for this real world case:
The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
registration provider. For example, for some DNRs, contact
identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733], and
registrar identifiers are specified using the IANA Registrar ID
assigned by ICANN. The server SHOULD define a scheme
for the <handle> parameter to differentiate between the
supported entity object types (e.g., contact and registrar),
such as using different <handle> formats, using a <handle>
precedence order, or a combination of formats and precedence
order.
The SHOULD could be a MUST, but the point is to provide guidance to
implementers of the protocol.
Two responses have been offered:
Jasdip Singh response:
One thought is if it could be in the RDAP profile doc for the DNRs
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en).
That way no need to update the spec.
James Gould response:
The RDAP Profile is dependent on the RFC, so I wouldn't create a
circular dependency. My recommendation is to take the lessons learned
in implementing the RFC and provide guidance on how to handle it in the
RFC directly.
Thanks!
Antoin and Jim
On 18 Sep 2020, at 9:52, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
The following working group document is believed to be ready for
submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis/
This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 2 October
2020.
Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple
“+1” is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this
document by replying to this message on the list.
The document shepherd for this document is Mario Loffredo.
Regards,
Jim and Antoin
_______________________________________________
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
