Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis-00.txt

[Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, at 07:35, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> FYI, folks. I just submitted the first version of 7482bis. I've 
> addressed the known errata, but I also have some clarification 
> suggestions queued up for discussion. I'll start a thread for each of 
> those shortly.


See my previous email on RFC7483bis the same caveat (on the breadth of changes called for) applies here.

3.1.3

This part comes directly from direct observations of what exists out there.
There is at least one RDAP server that generates URL for the "next" RDAP server
(to query the registrar) with the domain name in full uppercase.
For ASCII domains, this makes no difference.
However, I have seen multiple registrar RDAP servers that then fail to process
this URL. Just changing the domain name in the URL from uppercase to lowercase
makes the registrar RDAP server work.

One can say that this second server is broken, but another can say that lowercase
should be preferred, because if the name is in U-label form, you do not uppercase
it anyway, you leave it as is.

So while maybe we could keep accepting as input when doing the query
the name in any mixed case, maybe server should be expected to generate URLs 
in specific letter case?

RFC5890 says:
Therefore, since a valid A-label is the result of
   Punycode encoding of a U-label, A-labels should be produced only in
   lowercase, despite matching other (mixed-case or uppercase) potential
   labels in the DNS.


So maybe rfc7482bis should give more guidance either explicitly allowing
both forms, or mandating only one, etc.

Of course, potentially, same applies for 3.1.4 and 3.2.*


5. Extensibility

See my discussion about the prefix for attributes and the rdapConformance token
name in the thread on 7483bis
But same here for path elements, do we want the prefix to have any relationship
with the token in rdapConformance?


9.2 Nitpick

Use https:// for
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf



Also in general for all bis drafts, and please excuse my ignorance there, but
shouldn't they reference themselves on the bis version instead of previous one?
Example, this text:
"   This document does not describe the results or entities returned from
   issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET.  The specification of
   these entities is described in [RFC7483].

"

Shouldn't RFC7483 be replaced by the draft rfc7483bis?


PS: there is currently a problem in the tracker,
on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis/
a version 03 is shown as existing but you can't view the content.


-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  [e-mail]