Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 11 The method has the same security properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to access the registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC8446], which IANA supports. Is there a reason why it wouldn’t be recommended to access this information over TLS? ** Section 13. To IANA: Each of the following registries: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-ipv4/rdap-ipv4.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-asn/rdap-asn.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-dns/rdap-dns.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-ipv6/rdap-ipv6.xhtml point to a corresponding JSON file with the following URL, http://data.iana.org/rdap/<insert registry type>.json. HTTPS appears to be supported. Is there a reason why not to advertise the HTTPS version as well (or not advertise the HTTP)? _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
