Subject: [weirds] Richard Barnes' No Objection on draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Richard Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:29:25 -0700

Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-10: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap/

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

The use of JSON in this syntax is slightly disappointing.  Generally,
using JSON arrays to contain items of different types is not a great
idea.  It seems like the "services" entries should actually be objects,
with entries indicating the semantics of the inner arrays, e.g.:

OLD: [ ["1.0.0.0/8", "192.0.0.0/8"], ["https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/"]
]
NEW: { "resources": ["1.0.0.0/8", "192.0.0.0/8"], "urls":
["https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/"] }

This should not be hard to describe in the notation of Section 10.2, and
it only uses a few more bytes on the wire.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:59:09 -0700

Your faithful Responsible AD made the almost identical comment during AD 
Evaluation. The implementation ship had apparently sailed, with 
interoperable implementations, and so I decided that rough consensus and 
running code outweighed prettiness.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:55:54 -0700

> running code outweighed prettiness.

I thought that might be the case.  I expect that's the case for my other
COMMENT as well.  That's why they're COMMENTs :)