Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and RFC 7484

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.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 BA46712016E for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 04:14:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_SBL=0.5, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verisign.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 pptN7BHsrOwl for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 04:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail4.verisign.com (mail4.verisign.com [69.58.187.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14CBA12006F for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 04:14:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=5042; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1573128866; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=xLO5+JB9O+PF8bRzIKvTylzr+bd85xKIDJx1I3Xcju4=; b=WlMJalIDyigMy2iOHCuOH1fenPDh62SlVlRqo2awXnxsfLK9gkndGuWC U0yhEs/JcjPzfxd/dfGqQBiMTYeAE8KvMejYtFvxCjPNP+ltj/JgsFCsH Q4nNj0IS5MxIM94j/ssoDbr+voZIU80GdRd1Kwb2ff3e5iBmzlf4qb/6a 1MgAZq9Ittt3c7Wg4TbpaC6LOqaoxsZvMIobd8oNDPyfusWUE0UimUbl1 T5ZPljW3xjEWiy2mui/f8Uh7I+4AFiCL5GwPWlwbF70YXtJwx3ZghmlKO 4JG1uyktloAADmD/CoerpSEzUgB+77LS4g5q8SOcfFpMOQasGmRz0uXbf w==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,278,1569297600"; d="scan'208";a="8771728"
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:PUp7KhQcGJcOX+6M6JbBpXA8Kdpsv+yvbD5Q0YIujvd0So/mwa6zYxyN2/xhgRfzUJnB7Loc0qyK6vumADVRqs3f+Fk5M7V0HycfjssXmwFySOWkMmbcaMDQUiohAc5ZX0Vk9XzoeWJcGcL5ekGA6ibqtW1aFRrwLxd6KfroEYDOkcu3y/qy+5rOaAlUmTaxe7x/IAi4oAnLq8UanI9vJqk/xxbIv3BFZ/lYyWR0KFyJgh3y/N2w/Jlt8yRRv/Iu6ctNWrjkcqo7ULJVEi0oP3g668P3uxbDSxCP5mYHXWUNjhVIGQnF4wrkUZr3ryD3q/By2CiePc3xULA0RTGv5LplRRP0lCsKMSMy/WfKgcJyka1bugqsqRxhzYDJfIGbOvlwfq3fctMbWWVPUcleWjddAoynbYsDE/YNMfpaooT7ulAArQG+BQ6pBO73xDNGhHj23ak+0+s/FwHJxxIvEM4NsHjMsd77KbsdUeepzKnUwznIcvRb2Sz96IjPdhAhpe+DXbRrfsXP1UYvFBjIjkuOpoz/PjOVzeUNs2ed7+Z6Se2vjGsnphh3rzOyyMksjYzJiZgUylDC7Sh5wZg6JcG2SEJhZt6kCpRQuieHPIV1WsMvW3xktDogxrEbu5O2cjIGxIknyhPRcfCKfIuF7gr+WOqNOzt0mXBodK6lixqv/kWtyffwWtS33VpSoCpKjNrBumwI2hHW6MWIVudx8V2k1DqSyw/c9uRJLEApmqXFJZ4sx7o9mYcOvkvdGCL9hV/4g7WMdko+/+il8+HnYrL7qZCCL4J0kQT+Mrg2msy4HOQ4LhACX2iF9uS4073u5VD0TqlSgPErkqbXqJ/UKsUHqqKkGQNVzJos6xGlDze+ytgXh2QIIEhbeBKdlIjpPUvCL+z/Dfe6m1iskTFryO7aPrD5H5nBMmLPnKrjcLtz8UJQ1Qo+wN5F659bCbwNOPfzVVXwtNzcAB85KQu0w+P/BdVm1oMeXmaPAquHP6PUqlCH+P4gI+qXaY8Lpjn9Mfkl5+XvjX82n18RZ7Wm3ZwSaHygBPRpP12ZYWbwgtcGCWoFpAw+Q/HqiVCZUT5SaGyyU7gh5jEgEIimF5vMRpixgLyd2ye2BoVWZmVdB1+RFnfoa5+LW/ERZy2OJc9tiCALVb+kS4U5zxGhqBf6y6Z7LurT4iAYr4zs1Ndr6OzciRE/7j10ANqB02GDVW10mXkIRzBllJx49AZ0zFuS+ahombpFDpYbs/pPXhYSNY7GifFhXYPcQAXEK52pT1KiT9OsDDoyCpoKyNgSfww1T86iiRTH0iygDrQWv6KGHp0v863amXP2IpAumD79yKA9ggx+EYN0Pmq8i/sn+g==
X-IPAS-Result: A2E8AACjCcRd/zCZrQplGwEBAQEBAQEFAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBbQMBAQELAYMLgTEKhB+RJ5sfCAkBAQEBAQEBAQEHARgLDAEBAoN5RQIXhBw3Bg4CDgEBAQQBAQEBAQUDAQEBAoYgAQuCOyJqawEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEWAkNVMQEBAQEDAQEhEToLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQICJgICAiULFQgIAgQOBQgTgwiDBrIidYEyhU6EcQaBDigBjCuBQT6BEYMSPoEEgV4BAQKBdoJ5gl4EjRmCap4BAweCJJU5I5lyjkaID5FbAgQCBAUCFYFogXxwUIJsUBEUkE6Ib4U/dAGQGYEPAQE
Received: from BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) by BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1779.2; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:14:24 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::7c0a:1cc:5def:9dde]) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::7c0a:1cc:5def:9dde%4]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:14:24 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "andy@hxr.us" <andy@hxr.us>
CC: "pm@dotandco.com" <pm@dotandco.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and RFC 7484
Thread-Index: AQHVgrgi0EOuNYHVwkiXyGzURNBpdKdbsLdwgABFlwD//9tN8IABOnSAgA5oSPCAAEP4AIAUC+pw
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:14:24 +0000
Message-ID: <f93e8a5dcef34ad08bbf0a8c07c8e261@verisign.com>
References: <01911a4d-ce6f-444e-b402-543eb99b4508@www.fastmail.com> <1571075540714.86991@arin.net> <e94ce6eb3c84498aaac8fd9ca007b05e@verisign.com> <1571146057780.50771@arin.net> <73fed2fc3adb472dbf7e1cbffbfad12f@verisign.com> <ac53ee65-6d53-4bba-8d82-779a59266099@www.fastmail.com> <16037cffff4c48bb907388854d87874a@verisign.com> <CAAQiQRfmDUyWq3Pex9M4B0aWFhdsxiqq__Oj4Co6xTkQE1ngQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRfmDUyWq3Pex9M4B0aWFhdsxiqq__Oj4Co6xTkQE1ngQw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.170.148.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/IsdR5ND6tobYWU0E334PxzofNcQ>
Subject: Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and RFC 7484
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:14:28 -0000

I just submitted an errata report for this.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 10:06 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
> Cc: pm@dotandco.com; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and
> RFC 7484
>
> Yeah, if nobody cares that strongly then an errata will suffice.
> Perhaps we can do something about this in a set of bis versions of the specs
> if/when that comes about.
>
> -andy
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:05 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
> <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > There've been no other contributions to this discussion, so I'm leaning
> towards the path of least work to address the issue Patrick identified. That
> means errata for 8521 to note that the structure of the registry is based on
> the structure from 7484, but it includes the additional contact information.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:02 AM
> > > To: regext@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC
> > > 8521 and RFC 7484
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, at 10:17, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > > > FYI, folks. Does anyone have any thoughts on the better path forward?
> > >
> > > Between:
> > > 1) Publish errata for 8521 noting that "The bootstrap service
> > > registry for the RDAP service provider space is represented using
> > > the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484" should be changed
> > > to " The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider
> > > space is _modeled after_ the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC
> > > 7484", or
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > 2) Publish errata for 8521 to change the contact stuff, and then
> > > work with IANA to remove the contact values.
> > >
> > > I think it depends on the need or not to have contact information.
> > >
> > > If needed:
> > >
> > > - then option 1 applies, but I would think you need a little more
> > > explanation than just "is _modeled after_"; this is still probably
> > > the faster solution
> > > - or contact information could be handled elsewhere in the document,
> > > with inspiration from other RDAP specifications, using "remarks",
> > > "notices" or even "links" but that would need far more changes
> > > including to 8521 and is really more a 8521-bis than an errata. Or
> > > else just considering that for any URL given it can still be used
> > > with the "help" query case, which should be enough as the first step to
> know "who" is behind a given RDAP URL.
> > >
> > > If not needed:
> > >
> > > - option 2 is better but more work. Maybe interoperability issues
> > > for anyone already implementing this RFC?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the contact information comes because of §3.1 So it seems
> > > useful to have, but then why not say contact information is useful
> > > for all other bootstrap documents (domain, IPv4, IPv6, etc.) also?
> > > This would mean an 7484-bis, so again quite some work.
> > >
> > >
> > > What do people having implemented RFC 8521 think about that?
> > >
> > > --
> > >   Patrick Mevzek
> > >   pm@dotandco.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > regext mailing list
> > > regext@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
> > _______________________________________________
> > regext mailing list
> > regext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext