# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-13 CC @OR13
* line numbers: - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-13.txt&submitcheck=True * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md ## Discuss ### 200 or 404 ``` 715 If the search can be processed by the server, but there are no 716 results for the search, then the server returns an HTTP 200 (OK) 717 [RFC9110] response code, with the body of the response containing an 718 empty results array. ``` https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7480.html#section-5.3 implies that a 404 MUST be returned. ### Bare identifiers The shepherd writeup comments on the use of "bare identifiers", and I recall some discussion regarding possible collisions. I didn't see anything about this in security considerations, are there some "valid but harmful" examples that we can share to warn implementers, or has this issue been resolved? ## Comments ### Better Search Example Syntax? Instead of: ``` 157 ips?handle=XXXX ``` Consider syntax like: ``` Client request: GET .well-known/api-catalog HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Accept: application/linkset+json Server response: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2023 00:00:01 GMT Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1 Content-Type: application/linkset+json; profile="THIS-RFC-URL" { "linkset": [ { .... ``` (borrowed from - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-api-catalog/08/) ### Top/Bottom Is there a reason that `192.0.2.128/25` is missing from: ``` 391 +==================+===========================================+ 392 | INR object value | Bottom objects | 393 +==================+===========================================+ 394 | 192.0.2.0/24 | 192.0.2.0/25, 192.0.2.0/28, 192.0.2.0/32, | 395 | | 192.0.2.128/26, 192.0.2.192/26 | 396 +------------------+-------------------------------------------+ 397 | 192.0.2.0/25 | 192.0.2.0/25, 192.0.2.0/28, 192.0.2.0/32 | 398 +------------------+-------------------------------------------+ 399 | 192.0.2.128/25 | 192.0.2.128/26, 192.0.2.192/26 | 400 +------------------+-------------------------------------------+ ``` I expected to see text explaining why `192.0.2.0/25` is present but ` 192.0.2.128/25` is not. I also wonder why `192.0.2.0/25` is repeated in its bottom objects, whereas `192.0.2.128/25` is not. ### SHOULD return 501? ``` 505 By default, any valid status value may be used for status filtering. 506 Server operators MAY opt not to support "status" filtering for the 507 "down" and "bottom" link relations, in which case the server should 508 respond with an HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC9110] response code if 509 it receives such a request. Server operators MAY also opt not to ```
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
