Subject: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:04:53 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service
        Authors         : Marc Blanchet
                          Guillaume Leclanche
	Filename        : draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-05.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2014-08-28

Abstract:
   This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data
   Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for
   a requested scope, such as domain names, IP addresses or Autonomous
   System numbers.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Guillaume Leclanche <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 01:19:59 -0400

Hello,

this new version of the document contains most of the changes proposed
by Naoki Kambe. There are no changes yet to the IANA Considerations
section, another version will come for this specific part.

Note: now that I have pressed enter for upload, I noticed that I did not
complete properly the addition of the "description" element, this will
be fixed in the next version. By the way, the proposal was to have the
"description" as an array; is there any reason for this ? Having a
string seems more natural.

What is your opinion about the rest of the document ?

Guillaume

Le 2014-08-29 01:04, [email-masked] a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
>

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:40:51 +0000

A couple of comments:

1. Why is there an rdap_bootstrap object inside the outermost/top-level
object? Why not just have the top-level object be the bootstrap object?

2. Section 8 has the sentence "Clients SHOULD NOT fetch every time the
registry.² I don¹t know what this means.

3. Section 6 and Section 9 seem to limit the scope of the bootstrap, which
I think is a good idea. However, it isn¹t clear enough with regards to the
queries listed in rdap_query.
  A. There is no mention of nameserver lookups or searches. It is probably
not appropriate for a client implementer to assume the bootstrap works for
nameserver queries.
  B. The same hold true for /help

-andy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:59:42 -0700

> registry.² I don¹t know what this means.

Translation thing.  What's meant is "Clients SHOULD NOT fetch the registry
every time."

-MSK

---

From: Tom Harrison <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:51:43 +1000

> What is your opinion about the rest of the document ?

Section 3 has 'Base RDAP URLs are likely to have a trailing "/"
character'. Couldn't this be a MUST, like the parts beneath it?

-Tom

---

From: Guillaume Leclanche <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 00:41:35 -0400

>character'. Couldn't this be a MUST, like the parts beneath it?

Well, we could imagine a Base RDAP URL ending with "-" instead of "/" for example, the document only requires concatenation of the prefix to the segment. Or there could be no separator at all. It's unlikely anybody will implement anything else than a "/" though. Should we make this a MUST ?

Guillaume

---

From: Tom Harrison <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:15:49 +1000

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:41:35AM -0400, Guillaume Leclanche wrote:
> Well, we could imagine a Base RDAP URL ending with "-" instead of
> "/" for example, the document only requires concatenation of the
> prefix to the segment. Or there could be no separator at all. It's
> unlikely anybody will implement anything else than a "/" though.
> Should we make this a MUST ?

I think so. I can't think of a non-trailing-"/" use case that
outweighs being able to make a definitive statement about the
structure of the base URL.

-Tom