From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:12 PM To: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> Cc: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback
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. Hi Andy, Thanks for your feedback. One comment below. Jasdip From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us<mailto:a...@hxr.us>> Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 at 11:42 AM To: Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net<mailto:jasd...@arin.net>> Cc: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>>, regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> <regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback > I recommend including a registration of the "Geofeed links" redacted "name" > in the RDAP JSON Values registry with the "redacted name" type field. If > registered, the "description" member can be changed to a "type" member. > > [JS] Good idea. Will do. Is this really necessary? Under what conditions will a network operator be publishing this public CSV file that then requires an RIR to redact the link to it? [JS] I guess we were pre-emptively trying to tackle redaction for geofeed links :) but your point about such files already being public seems to make redaction unnecessary here. Question for the WG: Are we ok with removing redaction from the RDAP Geofeed draft? [SAH] I agree that it seems silly to redact something that is publicly available. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
