MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AF4A27B5-84A4-4CDC-A3DF-0538B2E17D75@elistx.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF4A27B5-84A4-4CDC-A3DF-0538B2E17D75@elistx.com>
From: "Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:04:24 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAAQiQRfNxUgFzJj0WadJopwoQ3urE1J3jkP9o2TwU1nC7CdqCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net>, Tom Harrison <tomh@apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: MPALVSB3XTVHBDFX4UXCHOGWBA5DXZ42
CC: REGEXT Working Group <regext@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bregext=5D_Re=3A_WGLC=3A_draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/jUppXiIKp6f4ltLpJ4C0U5jbopE>

Hi Jasdip and Tom,

I think this is a really well done draft.

I have the following comments:

1. The registrations in the IANA section run together. I would be
easier to distinguish the individual registrations if they were
numbered and the bullet points were nested, or some other visual
property that separates them.

2. The mention of "lookup URL" in Section 5 and Section 7 could use a
reference to Section 3.1 of RFC 9082 as you have done section 4.1 of
your draft.

3. The search pattern for autnums?handle in section 2.3 says that the
pattern is up to each "registration provider". Does that mean each
RIR? This does not seem to be very predictable for a client in that it
needs to know, somehow, the search pattern of the server. Could you
define the search pattern, as is specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 9082?
Or maybe reference Section 4.1 of RFC 9082?

-andy

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> wr=
ote:
>
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready =
for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best Curre=
nt Practice:
>
> RDAP RIR Search
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search/09/
>
> This document has been through WGLC previously.  However, a number of que=
stions arose and changes were made that are considered material and thus we=
 are proceeding with this additional WGLC.
>
> Please indicate your support or no objection for the publication of this =
document by replying to this message on list (a simple =E2=80=9C+1=E2=80=9D=
 is sufficient).
>
> If any working group member has questions regarding the publication of th=
is document please respond on the list with your concerns by close of busin=
ess everywhere, Friday, 2 August 2024.  This WGLC has been extended to 3 we=
eks because of the IETF120 meeting.
>
> If there are no objections the document will be submitted to the IESG.
>
> The Document Shepherd for this document is Mario Loffredo.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoin and Jim
> REGEXT WG Co-Chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-leave@ietf.org