Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Tom, That would work as well. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 11/20/23, 7:20 PM, "Tom Harrison" mailto:t...@apnic.net>> wrote: Caution: This email originated from o

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Hi James, On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:46:32PM +, Gould, James wrote: > Thanks for making the change. The only adjustment I would make is > to ensure that the response members for use the registered extension > identifiers, such as "ips" or "ips_searchResults" instead of > "ipSearchResults" and

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Tom, Thanks for making the change. The only adjustment I would make is to ensure that the response members for use the registered extension identifiers, such as "ips" or "ips_searchResults" instead of "ipSearchResults" and "autnums" or "autnums_searchResults" instead of "autnumSearchResult".

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Hi James, On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 03:02:34PM +, Jasdip Singh wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 08:34:57PM +, Gould, James wrote: >> After the IETF-118 REGEXT meeting, I found this message that I >> never replied to. I believe that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search >> needs to fully follow

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Hello James, Given the feedback during the regext session in Prague, we’ll proceed with your suggestion of registering 2 additional extension id’s – “ips” and “autnums” – beside “rir_search”. Thanks, Jasdip From: "Gould, James" Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 3:35 PM To: Jasdip Singh , "t

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Jasdip & Tom, After the IETF-118 REGEXT meeting, I found this message that I never replied to. I believe that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search needs to fully follow the extension identifier as a prefix rule defined in RFC 7480, RFC 9082, and RFC 9083. I don’t support the concept of two class

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Thanks for your feedback, James. And, sorry for the late reply. As for point #2, Section 6 gives the rationale for choosing “ips” over “_ips” (and similarly, “autnums” over ““_autnums”) for these new search path segments: “Because IP network objects and autonomous system number objects are part

[regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Tom & Jasdip, Ahead of the REGEXT meeting this afternoon, I did a review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search and below is my feedback: 1. I believe that the search for ips and autnums should have been included in RFC 9082 from the start, but I’m glad that you’re looking at add support in