Subject: [regext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:27:33 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/

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

** Section 11
   The method has
   the same security properties as the RDAP protocols themselves.  The
   transport used to access the registries can be more secure by using
   TLS [RFC8446], which IANA supports.

Is there a reason why it wouldn’t be recommended to access this information
over TLS?

** Section 13.  To IANA:

Each of the following registries:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-ipv4/rdap-ipv4.xhtml
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-asn/rdap-asn.xhtml
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-dns/rdap-dns.xhtml
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-ipv6/rdap-ipv6.xhtml

point to a corresponding JSON file with the following URL,
http://data.iana.org/rdap/<insert registry type>.json.  HTTPS appears to be
supported.  Is there a reason why not to advertise the HTTPS version as well
(or not advertise the HTTP)?