From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:51 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>; a...@hxr.us
Cc: i...@antoin.nl; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello Andy, Scott,
Let’s take a specific example from the RIR search draft (a specification with
multiple extension identifiers defined) to test-drive these options. Say, an IP
network search response:
{
"rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "rirSearch1",
"ips", "ipSearchResults", ... ],
...
"ipSearchResults": [
{
"objectClassName": "ip network",
"handle": "XXXX-RIR",
"startAddress": "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress": "192.0.2.127",
...
"links": [
...,
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25";,
"rel": "up",
"href": "https://rdap.example.com/ips/rirSearch1/up/192.0.2.0/25";,
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25";,
"rel": "down",
"href": "https://rdap.example.com/ips/rirSearch1/down/192.0.2.0/25";,
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25";,
"rel": "top",
"href": "https://rdap.example.com/ips/rirSearch1/top/192.0.2.0/25";,
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25";,
"rel": "bottom",
"href": "https://rdap.example.com/ips/rirSearch1/bottom/192.0.2.0/25";,
"type": "application/rdap+json"
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "ip network",
"handle": "YYYY-RIR",
"startAddress": "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress": "192.0.2.255",
...
}
]
}
Though the specification defines 5 extension identifiers (“rirSearch1 “, “ips”,
“ipSearchResults”, “autnum”, and “autnumSearchResults”), note how the example
only includes “rirSearch1 “, “ips”, and “ipSearchResults”:
* “ipSearchResults” for the "ipSearchResults" member.
* “ips” and “rirSearch1“ for the construction of the “href” values in the
“links” member of an IP network object for link relations.
IMO, this presently points to Option 2 from the choices Mario posed for the WG.
Per the “construction of response” guidance from RFC 9083, is that OK in your
opinion?
[SAH] Yes, I believe so, Jasdip. A client that receives this response will need
to understand the bits defined by the “rirSearch1 “, “ips”, and
“ipSearchResults” identifiers. There’s nothing in that response related to
“autnum” or “autnumSearchResults”, so those identifiers don’t need to be
included in the rdapConformance data structure.
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
