> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 6:37 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; > '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object- > [email protected]' <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object- > tag > > On 6/5/18 8:39 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Roach <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:32 PM > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag > >> > >> I've reviewed the document draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag in > >> preparation for placing it into IETF last call. The mechanism and > >> document generally look good and useful; however, I have some > >> concerns about its URL synthesis. > >> > >> The mechanical synthesis of URLs as described in this document > >> contravenes the requirements of BCP 190, section 2.3. Ordinarily, I > >> would consider this a showstopper and ask the working group to adjust > >> handling to match BCP 190 requirements (e.g., using RFC 6570 URI > >> Templates). Because this specification simply builds upon RFC 7484 > >> techniques for performing URI synthesis, however, forcing such a > >> change would result in an incongruity that I understand might cause > deployment issues. > > Thanks for the review, Adam. I'm a little confused, though. RFC 7484 > doesn't talk about URI synthesis - it describes registries and > registration practices for data that can be used by RDAP clients to find > servers. RFC 7482 describes how the URLs for RDAP queries are structured. > My document includes the URLs and path segments from 7482 only as > examples. > > Apologies -- I meant RFC 7482 rather than 7484. > > > > >> Nonetheless, I request that the working group consider whether the > >> use of something like RFC 6570 would be appropriate for the mechanism > >> described this document. Please also understand that other area > >> directors may note and object to this type of URL synthesis during IESG > processing. Chairs: > >> please let me know when you believe working group consideration of > >> this issue is complete. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but since this document isn't focused on > URI synthesis I don't see how 6570 is applicable *unless* we're revisiting > 7482. What this document describes is a practice for RDAP entity > identifier construction so that clients can use information contained in > that structure to bootstrap entity queries. That is, "when you create > entity identifiers you should stick this thing on the end to make it > easier for clients to find the associated server". > > Okay, that makes sense. I had read this document as specifying the > concatenation, but your explanation that it is simply specifying > identifiers for use with 7482 makes sense. > > > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > >> - > >> > >> I also have one question about an example in section 2: > >> > >> > For example, if the base RDAP URL > >> > "https://example.com/rdap/"; is associated with service provider > >>> "YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged > entity > >>> identifier "XXXX-YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service > >>> provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider identifier > >>> "YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP > >>> URL "https://example.com/rdap/";. The base RDAP URL is concatenated > >>> to the entity handle to create a complete RDAP query path segment of > >>> "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY";. > >> I read the text as calling for implementors to concatenate "XXXX-YYYY" > >> to the > >> end of the IANA-registered base URL ("https://example.com/rdap/";), > >> resulting in "https://example.com/rdap/XXXX-YYYY";. The example instead > >> shows "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYY";. Is the inclusion of > >> "entity/" in this example an error? > > No, it's not an error. That’s the path segment that 7482 describes for > entity queries. I can see how my text above might be confusing, though, so > how about this wording instead? > > > > OLD: > > "The base RDAP URL is concatenated to the entity handle to create a > complete RDAP query path segment of "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX- > YYYY"" > > > > NEW: > > "The RDAP query URL is formed using the base RDAP URL and entity path > segment described in Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482, using "XXXX-YYY" as the > value of the handle identifier. The complete RDAP query URL becomes > "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY"."; > > That seems good. > > Thanks for the explanations. Based on what you've said, I think this is > ready for IETF last call -- you can treat my comment for clarification > of the example as an IETF last call comment, and address it along with > any other feedback you receive during last call.
Will do - thanks! Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
