Hi Tom, Thanks for the follow-up.
Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Tom Harrison <[email protected]> > Envoyé : lundi 2 juin 2025 03:57 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > Cc : The IESG <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Objet : Re: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext- > rdap-rir-search-17: (with COMMENT) > > > Hi Med, > > Thanks for your review and feedback. > > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 05:40:17AM -0700, Mohamed Boucadair via > Datatracker wrote: > > # ASN is also IP-related! > > > > CURRENT: > > are various IP- and ASN-related search options provided by > RIRs via > > their Whois services for which there is no corresponding RDAP > > functionality. > > > > Maybe consider: > > > > NEW: > > are various IP-related search options (e.g., IP address, IP > prefix, and ASN) > > provided by RIRs via > > We think that in the context of RIR Whois services, drawing a > distinction between IPs and ASNs is reasonable, because although > they are related to each other in a general sense, the category > split is quite pronounced in Whois, and in RDAP as well. [Med] ACK. A minor change without disturbing what seems to be an established practice would be then: OLD: IP- NEW: IP address/prefix. That would be consistent with how these options are offered by, e.g., - IP Address or CIDR range - ASN (Autonomous System Number or Autnum) - Origin AS > > > # Normative language > > > > CURRENT: > > Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to > > illustrate element relationships, and are not a REQUIRED > feature of > > this protocol. > > > > I understood this is somehow a convention in RDAP, but I still > think > > the use of normative language here is not correct. Combing both > "not" > > and "REQUIRED" is making things worse. > > "REQUIRED" has been changed to "required". [Med] Thanks. > > > # IP network information > > > > CURRENT: > > Searches for IP network information by handle are specified > using the > > form: > > > > An ASN is also an IP network information. Consider calling out > address > > and/or prefix here. > > To make this clearer, we have added to this sentence a reference to > the specific IP network object class from RFC 9083, and made > corresponding changes to the other similarly-situated sentences in > the document. [Med] Thanks. > > > # Extension & Version pattern > > > > CURRENT: > > 'ips/rirSearch1/<relation>/<IP address>': Used to identify > an IP > > network search using a relation and an IP address to match > a set > > of IP networks. > > > > Why a version is used here but not for the other extensions > defined in > > this document? > > "rirSearch1" includes a "version number" to indicate that there may > be a successor extension at some point in the future (extension > identifiers in RDAP are opaque, but it's relatively common to > include a number for this purpose). [Med] Can we then say explicitly in the text that this is about version 1 of rirSearch in the text? Thanks. The extension identifiers > without version numbers (e.g. "ips") have that form so that they > are consistent with the corresponding search URLs and result > members that are defined in the base RDAP documents. [Med] I interpret this as there won't be successor extensions for these. A note would be helpful because otherwise, it is not obvious why distinct patterns are used for naming the extensions. > > > # Compliance with HTTP BCP (RFC9205) > > > > CURRENT: > > server SHOULD respond with an HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) > [RFC9110] > > response code if it receives such a request. Server operators > MAY > > also opt not to support "status" filtering for values other > than > > "active" for the "rdap-up" and "rdap-top" link relations, in > which > > case the server SHOULD respond with an HTTP 501 (Not > Implemented) > > [RFC9110] response code if it receives such a request. > > > > . > > > > via a lookup URL (see Section 3.1 of [RFC9082]). If there is > no > > result for the search, the server returns an HTTP 404 (Not > Found) > > [RFC9110] response code. > > > > The use of normative language is IMO not compliant with the > guidance > > in RFC9205 about error handling, especially this part: > > > > Applications using HTTP MUST NOT re-specify the semantics of > HTTP > > status codes, even if it is only by copying their definition. > It is > > NOT RECOMMENDED they require specific reason phrases to be > used; > > Our reading of RFC 9205 is that the text in the document is OK, > because it's mapping application errors to status codes, rather > than trying to re-specify the semantics of those codes. From that > document: > > ... applications using HTTP should define their errors to use > the > most applicable status code, making generous use of the general > status codes (200, 400, and 500) when in doubt. > > Without defining that mapping, servers end up using different > codes. [Med] I'm afraid that you do: " SHOULD respond with an HTTP 501 .." is an example. > For example, the 404 text above was added due to some servers > returning 200 as the response code for RDAP searches that produced > no results, and others returning 404. > > There is also: > > To distinguish between multiple error conditions that are > mapped to > the same status code and to avoid the misattribution issue > outlined > above, applications using HTTP should convey finer-grained > error > information in the response's message content and/or header > fields. > [PROBLEM-DETAILS] provides one way to do so. > > which consideration is addressed in RDAP by way of the explicit > error response, per > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw > ww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc9083.html%23name-error-response- > body&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C9d5470f8ae514f > e675ee08dda178c76b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638 > 844262303180268%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlY > iOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7 > C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wb06v5n6zR7my5fOfUmxtjAz4LFKgwUCo%2Fk5bIXFTnc%3D& > reserved=0. > > Also, just to avoid any doubt, although the document includes > reason phrases, this is just for the benefit of the reader, rather > than indicating that those phrases should be used as-is in the > responses. [Med] Thanks for clarifying. Better to have this intent clarified in the spec itself. > > -Tom ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
