On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:27:13PM +0200, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > > On 8 Apr 2021, at 13:54, Randy Bush via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Could we consider creating an NWI with a reduced scope? > > > > as an exercise, how minimal can we get? > > Given the draft RFC: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/?include_text=1 > > I suggest the following minimal Solution Definition for an NWI: > > - Implement support for an optional, single "geofeed:" attribute in inetnum > and inet6num object types. > - Validate there is a maximum of either one "remarks: Geofeed" or "geofeed:" > attribute per object. > - Validate the "geofeed:" URL is well-formed and specifies the HTTPS protocol. > - Include the "geofeed:" attribute in database dumps and split files. > > And inversely, what we could leave out (to simplify the implementation): > > - Do not support non-ASCII values in URL domain names or path (these must be > converted beforehand) > - Do not migrate (re-write) "remarks: Geofeed" values as "geofeed:" attributes > - Do not validate that the URL is reachable (available) and do not validate > the content > > Is this enough to satisfy the draft requirements? Is it enough to be > useful for the DB-WG?
I think the above is a great start to get a 'minimal viable geofeed' going! The first priority should be to move things over from 'remarks:' to a dedicated attribute. Kind regards, Job
