Subject: Re: [weirds] Object inventory update

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:13:00 +0000

When the RIRs met to put together a unified model, many things were
purposefully left out, among them the routing registry specific objects
and queries. The intent was that such objects and queries, including IP
search queries for more specific nets, would be added at a later time when
it was felt the community desired them. At present there is not much in
the way of IRR community participation on this list. I think adding these
objects and queries to our documents now would further delay us as we
would need to seek out IRR participants for their feedback.

-andy

On 9/29/13 12:49 PM, "John Levine" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>Is it the goal of RDAP to be able to query all of these registries for
>>all this information?
>
>To the extent possible, yes definitely.
>
>Keep in mind that doesn't mean that all the RIRs have to provide the
>same data or answer the same set of queries.  It does mean that for
>the data they do provide, the query and response formats are the same.
>If some RIRs respond to queries with the JSON equivalent of "I don't
>know" for the stuff they don't handle, that's OK.
>
>R's,
>John
>_______________________________________________
>weirds mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Oct 2013 22:54:22 -0000

>would need to seek out IRR participants for their feedback.

Ah.  That seems reasonable.  Is it worth putting in a sentence making
it explicit that we know about those objects but are not addressing
them at this time?

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:56:10 +0000

>it explicit that we know about those objects but are not addressing

I think that would make sense. Good idea.

-andy

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:45:13 +0800

I'll try to add a RIR survey result including the analysis of the data
models of IP address, ASN, Person or contact and the organization that held
the resource. In addition, clarify why we address the selected objects in
this draft not them all.

Regards,
Linlin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:54 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] Object inventory update
> 
> >search queries for more specific nets, would be added at a later time
> >when it was felt the community desired them. At present there is not
> >much in the way of IRR community participation on this list. I think
> >adding these objects and queries to our documents now would further
> >delay us as we would need to seek out IRR participants for their
feedback.
> 
> Ah.  That seems reasonable.  Is it worth putting in a sentence making it
> explicit that we know about those objects but are not addressing them at
this
> time?