Re: [regext] RDAP questions

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97247128BBB for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ppYKJFJ9RQd for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D72D12894A for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id t189so20484317wmt.1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :subject:to:cc:from:message-id; bh=ZySBbp15Ya461GEv8XQOW4HUJGzat8OHpvNGBaMcN/w=; b=lYcYR7Mq91UEntpkJ1FBryZVoejDvx5wvzULnFiUCPKhppBoZU58e+aiPi0GI6xRnm FgscD8Wqs9ui6VIL8fhpv90R5qRMAtESAc2n36pdOQGEkcVIkgplZK8vdlzKp4KY5Uey a/YhwSgOCMfWjzkUl0h0yN9qrvzlpCC1+A98edlxxv0UAPPa7jrcedGAwD+xrAwLM0MJ R8ItVXQTrqRAq6OmjL3SMbjTE3k9vNMGqysWRB1ZD+oUX1NXhLJzsO43gviemRlMAjMn wvDPzDifs02kb0MfEZflJ+rtAEZnFEESPMrvwByogyURLrNcBtGbBbyeiv0mW1jSWlla IK6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:cc:from:message-id; bh=ZySBbp15Ya461GEv8XQOW4HUJGzat8OHpvNGBaMcN/w=; b=neniL3+GDTLt+2lSoKoRYQLzzRxGr7fFWsjVWIq6r62OjCi+a1FMqgpXt370xgcDuR WEtBG/w1x03uwkPhHKjsITVNO6Ly/HASzZCLTDSRLHR13XE9U5E7JSiQWq12TNj0LFh+ FEixWfdctnx8OoEK45XEf/wwA11/R0CT2UMjlLEeNZx2VLGtY1PlrhiFkDP/hDT8nGGq h1GBmMXBv4teyoUDwFOBbBmd0A0d92kGexH6b+zgQlprmePVnTG95yQBU3zNkzMgqgU+ qNcNPYNw7z2IChhTdjKATN29cEISqVAg2d08X2UHARyt0ZQYjUsRLuryU9lu7DVEP6O8 cuHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2iUbBgccwW5WgbFnhVd7UfaaTy8OOES2VQWUYT96G/w/FcYvMHmZmNCr4SC+nXEQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.224.69 with SMTP id x66mr4369754wmg.21.1490125677889; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.100.51] (91-119-123-15.dsl.dynamic.surfer.at. [91.119.123.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h3sm26186321wrb.6.2017.03.21.12.47.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:47:51 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRccTcBxg3fbzHVQHKzfvr3F-tDg0cFGdwCVWeXdUg5JtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALRmJyiz3yx=Gxa9LeWNUJU5CJczvc6ojjyVwUPL4mcbD5wKiw@mail.gmail.com> <64CC805B-AD64-4127-8645-C576104AFA8B@arin.net> <D3CF5FFE.1174C5%gustavo.lozano@icann.org> <CALRmJyi2LuoJOFAN95dZQs1H4KEKzM6pEDz=rEBZ4QmqqfHVWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1BbcRevbXPZY166tHLRB_eoSgir7u8W+usdmDZywFZprHbYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAQiQRccTcBxg3fbzHVQHKzfvr3F-tDg0cFGdwCVWeXdUg5JtA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
CC: Andy Newton <andy@arin.net>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FC41C212-42D4-4572-A22B-ED740C4AEEDC@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/2ZF0ZcWXTN2hwLCLfCvYe0yxgJI>
Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP questions
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:48:02 -0000

On 21 March 2017 18:47:34 CET, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
>Hi...
>
>On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
><rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Another question
>>
>> 1) country (full name / name) versus country codes.
>>
>> In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7483#section-3 you suggest to use
>> alpha-2 country codes
>>
>> Yet autnum and network talk about
>> ---8<---
>>  o  country -- a string containing the name of the two-character
>>       country code of the autnum
>> ---8<---
>>
>> where "the name" makes me think i should use the full name?
>> Should that read
>> ---8<---
>>  o  country -- a string containing the two-character
>>       country code of the autnum
>> ---8<---
>
>It should be the 2 character country code. Good catch.
>
>>
>> And then there is jCard which seemingly attempts to trick me into
>> using the full country name ? Lovely.
>
>It does seem to desire that.

As such I find 7483 requiring the country code rather inconsistent with the jCard RFC especially since we would have both "spellings" in the very same output.

As ugly as it is, I'd use the full name also in 7483, deferring to the jCard RFC in a comment, FWIW. 

>>
>> 2) entity handles
>>
>> At least for DNRs the mixture of registrars and contacts seems to be
>a
>> bit unfortunate at first glance.
>> For handles (in the DNR / RFC5733 sense) could conflict between
>> registrars and contacts. Furthermore there is no (apparent) way to
>> output a ROID which would make it easier to distinguish these two,
>> disregarding the role of course.
>> I could work around this by requiring a -ROIDSFX for contacts and
>none
>> for registrars, for example.
>>
>> So i think my question is how to respond to a non-search query for an
>> ambiguous entity?
>
>I'm not sure I understand this. You have two entities with the same
>handle?

Yes. I think in EPP they are unambiguous. 

thanks,