From: Orie <o...@or13.io> Date: Friday, January 31, 2025 at 9:42 AM To: Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net> Cc: regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [regext] Re: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-08 <snip>
## Nits ### Reads awkwardly ``` 249 inetnum objects (per [RFC9632]), clients who find a geofeed link 250 object within an IP network object MUST ignore geofeed data from that 251 link that is outside the IP network object's address range. ``` that link that -> any link that ? [JS] Since “that link” points to “a geofeed link object within an IP network object”, using “any link” instead would not be correct. We would like to propose the following text to remove any ambiguity: “… clients who find a geofeed link object within an IP network object MUST, after retrieving the geofeed data from that link, ignore any entry where the entry's IP address range is outside the IP network object's address range.” Will that work? yes, perhaps this might read slightly better: “… clients who find a geofeed link object within an IP network object MUST resolve the associated geofeed data and ignore any entry where the entry's IP address range is outside the IP network object's address range.” The MUST is having an awkward interaction with "retrieving" here, not sure if it is your intention to make retrieving (dereferencing) a normative requirement. dereferencing comes with other possible requirements, see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110#section-4.3.4 / https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-1.2.2 No, retrieving is not a normative requirement. Will the following work? “... clients who find a geofeed link object within an IP network object and opt to retrieve the data from the associated link MUST ignore any entry where the entry's IP address range is outside the IP network object's address range.” Jasdip
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
