Subject: [regext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 23:52:02 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[ comments ]]

[ section 2.3 ]

* My current understanding is that it's not possible to request a sort by
  IP address in general (i.e. without regard to IP address family).  Otherwise,
  since some IPv6 addresses (admittedly not any within the current 2000::/3
  GUA space) might be numerically less then some IPv4 addresses, I think there
  would probably need to be some text around relative ordering between IPv4 and
  IPv6 addresses regardless of numerical equivalent values.

  But again: my reading is that sort can only be by ipV4 or ipV6 (and not just
  some generalized "ip" parameter), so this shouldn't be necessary.

[[ nits ]]

[ section 2.1 ]

* s/value of sort "parameter"/value of the "sort" parameter/ perhaps?

[ section 2.4 ]

* I think the cursor value "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MAo=" might decode to
  'offset=100,limit=50\n' (with a trailing newline).  The base64 encoding
  without the trailing newline might be 'b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MA==', but
  someone should double-check me on that.

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:18:55 +0200

Hi Erik,

thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
[ML] I think sorting by ipv4 or ipv6 is less confusing for consumers and 
more easy to implement for producers. Anyway, an RDAP server is free to 
provide the "ip" sorting property.
> * s/value of sort "parameter"/value of the "sort" parameter/ perhaps?
[ML] Yes, absolutely.
>    someone should double-check me on that.
[ML] You're right. I used a quick converter available on the web. I have 
just executed the conversion by the Base64 Java class methods and the 
correct encoding is "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MA==".

Best,

Mario

>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:02:05 -0400

It seems to me that just defining here that when sorting by IP address, all
v4 addresses sort before all v6 addresses... makes sense and should not be
confusing.

Barry

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:22 AM Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:30:35 +0200

Hi Barry,

most common  nameserver configuration includes one address for each IP 
version so clients couldn't perceive which response value is used for 
sorting. Besides, based on the nameserver representation in RDAP, I 
imagine that servers would select the nameserver IP addresses according 
to a given version more easily than doing the same regardless the version.

But, above all, section 4 of BCP91 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3901#section-4> states that a nameserver 
SHOULD have at least one IPv4 address in order to preserve name space 
continuity. This is the reason why registries don't accept namservers 
with only IPv6 addresses (at least, as far as I know).

Definitivelly, sorting by "ip" would mean sorting by "ipv4".

Best,

Mario

Il 21/09/2020 16:02, Barry Leiba ha scritto:
> It seems to me that just defining here that when sorting by IP 
> address, all v4 addresses sort before all v6 addresses... makes sense 
> and should not be confusing.
>
> Barry
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:22 AM Mario Loffredo 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Erik,
>
>
>
>     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo