Subject: Re: [regext] [Ext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Gustavo Lozano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 21:52:21 +0000

Thank you Erik,

Comments below are prefixed with Authors-.

A new version has been published here:

Regards,
Gustavo

On 8/25/20, 17:47, "Erik Kline via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html__;!!PtGJab4!oublqDZDSArqbWBQnbFor1rxwDgavlq-WBXYt_Cr9S7UqhIyOUn0WdGP8hxc-QTzTjHzr-r7-Q0$ 
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping/__;!!PtGJab4!oublqDZDSArqbWBQnbFor1rxwDgavlq-WBXYt_Cr9S7UqhIyOUn0WdGP8hxc-QTzTjHzztI-XAo$ 

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

    [ section 4.5 ]

    * For text representations you want RFC 5952 rather than 4291.

Authors- fixed in the next version of the I-D.

    [ section 5.1.2.1.5, 5.2.2.1.3 ]

    * It's not clear that ",v4" or ",v6" are adding anything. The IP address
      family should be unambiguous without the hint.

      No change necessary, it just seems like this isn't really needed.  (For
      example, if there's even a remote possibility someone might try to list
      IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses -- or even worse, compat addresses -- then
      there are going some other, much bigger problems ahead.)

Authors- it's a hint for verification to the party restoring the deposit

    [ section 5.4.1.1 ]

    * Is it recommended at all that rdeRegistrar:url be https whenever possible?

Authors- text added in the next version of the I-D.

    * In addition to whois name/url should there RDAP information?  Or is the
      http/https whois URL expected to handle RDAP?

Authors- the industry is moving away for storing the base URL for the RDAP services in the SRS. See RFC7484, and https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml. There have been conversations of having a generic bootstrap-like for Registrars to accommodate non-gTLDs. If there is a specific need to store this information in the deposit, an extension can be created.