Re: [regext] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04: (with DISCUSS)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 12:21 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Gould, James
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-
> rdap-object-tag-04: (with DISCUSS)
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
>  (snip)
> > >
> > > This is a fine document, but I have one possible issue that I would
> > > like to quickly discuss before recommending approval of this document:
> > >
> > > Looking at the example in Section 3:
> > >
> > >    {
> > >      "version": "1.0",
> > >      "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
> > >      "description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values",
> > >      "services": [
> > >        [
> > >          ["YYYY"],
> > >
> > > Values like YYYY are not distinguishable from TLD values registered
> > > in <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-dns/rdap-dns.xhtml>. All
> > > numeric values (ASNs or ranges of ASNs), as well as IPv4/IPv6
> > > addresses are syntactically distinguishable from TLDs, but values
> > > registered in this document are not. Is this a problem? My concern
> > > is about fetching JSON from
> > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-dns/rdap-dns.xhtml> and
> > > misinterpreting it as valid data from the registry established in this
> document or vice versa.
> >
> > Thanks for the review, Alexey. No, I don't think it's an issue. The
> > registries are distinct because they're designed to be associated with
> > different query types. A client should use the different RDAP
> > bootstrap registries (there are currently 4; this one would make 5) in
> > such a way that that they're directly mapped to specific types of
> > queries. Domain name queries, for example, should be mapped to values
> > in the Domain Name Space registry. Values in this registry should be
> > mapped to other types of RDAP queries, like entity values. The
> > processing flow would look something like this:
> >
> > Receive query
> > Determine query type
> > if {query type == (domain|AS|IPv4 address|IPv6 address|entity)} then
> > {extract registry key; map to appropriate bootstrap registry; retrieve
> > bootstrap value} else {no bootstrap is possible}
>
> Ok, so if you don't think that these JSON payloads are ever saved to files
> and sent around via other means, than I will clear.
> I am just thinking it that it would be better to have something in the
> payload to allow them to be distinguishable. (E.g. an extra JSON
> attribute.)

We could do something like that, but for the sake of consistency it would mean modifying the existing registries, too.

Scott