Re: [regext] Host update and removing V6 glues aka comparison normalized and compressed representation

[Patrick Mevzek]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 13:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck wrote:
> we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
> removing v6 addresses.

[..]

> What should be the correct behave in such situations ?

RFC 5952
A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
August 2010, Standards Track

Selected quotes:
It is expected that the canonical format
   will be followed by humans and systems when representing IPv6
   addresses as text, but all implementations must accept and be able to
   handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format.


3.2.1.  General Summary

   With all the possible methods of text representation, each
   application must include a module, object, link, etc. to a function
   that will parse IPv6 addresses in a manner such that no matter how it
   is represented, they will mean the same address.

The recommendation
   in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when generating an
   address to be represented as text, but all implementations MUST
   accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format.


It seems to me that the system (EPP server) should accept the IPv6 in any legit 
format and map it to its internal format whatever it chooses to use, before 
applying any other kind of business rule, such as accepting or refusing the 
command.

> IP addresses are anonymized.

Next time, for obfuscation, use guidance from RFC 3849.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  p...@dotandco.com

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] Regain of interest in RDAP tiered access?

[Patrick Mevzek]

Hello,

As you may be aware, ICANN discussed with WP29 on issues related to GDPR and 
whois.
Among the set of documents exchanged there is this timeline:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-timeline-implement-action-plan-20apr18-en.pdf

Besides the time frame goals exposed that I let you judge by yourself
(it remains to be seen how European regulators will allow exceptions on their
dates published 2 years ago),
I see specific mention of layered access for RDAP, which is refreshing after
so many years of blind views on this by governing parties.

This also may mean more (expedited?) work to conduct in this working group to 
deliver solutions for proper RDAP layered access :-)

And Scott's drafts and experiments are probably very good starting points.

Let the festivities begin!

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  p...@dotandco.com

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Host update and removing V6 glues aka comparison normalized and compressed representation

[Thomas Corte]

Hello,

On 26/04/2018 13:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
> removing v6 addresses.
> 
> I think its not clearly defined that host address should be normalized
> for comparison.
> 
> In our case a host info return:
> 
>   2001:4b3:624:1::b051
> 
> An Update is done with following:
> 
>   
>  2001:4b3:624:1:0:0:0:b051
>   
> 
> and it failed on registry side.
> 
> What should be the correct behave in such situations ?

While it may not be explicitly specified, I think that anything but
normalizing the addresses prior to a comparison would be highly
unprofessional. It wouldn't cross my mind to regard the two addresses
above as different in this context.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 

 |   |
 | knipp |Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
  ---Technologiepark
 Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
 44227 Dortmund
 Deutschland

 Dipl.-Informatiker  Tel:+49 231 9703-0
 Thomas CorteFax:+49 231 9703-200
 Stellvertretender LeiterSIP:thomas.co...@knipp.de
 Software-EntwicklungE-Mail: thomas.co...@knipp.de

 Registereintrag:
 Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728

 Geschäftsführer:
 Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Host update and removing V6 glues aka comparison normalized and compressed representation

[Rubens Kuhl]

While my experience is more with host attributes registries, I wonder if 
removing the single address of a host object would be forbidden because that is 
actually leaving the object with no content at all.
Does the same happen if the object already had a v4 and a v6 address, and you 
then remove one of them ?


Rubens


> On 26 Apr 2018, at 08:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
> removing v6 addresses.
> 
> I think its not clearly defined that host address should be normalized
> for comparison.
> 
> In our case a host info return:
> 
>  2001:4b3:624:1::b051
> 
> An Update is done with following:
> 
>  
> 2001:4b3:624:1:0:0:0:b051
>  
> 
> and it failed on registry side.
> 
> What should be the correct behave in such situations ?
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marco Schrieck
> 
> 
> PS:
> IP addresses are anonymized.
> 
> 
> --
> InterNetX GmbH
> Johanna-Dachs-Str. 55
> 93055 Regensburg
> Germany
> 
> Tel. +49 941 59559-0
> Fax  +49 941 59579-050
> 
> www.internetx.com
> www.facebook.com/InterNetX
> www.twitter.com/InterNetX
> 
> Geschäftsführer:
> Thomas Mörz (CEO), Hakan Ali
> Amtsgericht Regensburg, HRB 7142
> 
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext