Re: [regext] Virtual Interim Meeting Question: XXXX and YYYY in rfc7482bis

Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at> Wed, 29 April 2020 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
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 7B62C3A0A6C for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nic.at
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 JRTpgpA_ZAWR for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) (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 225B63A0A5E for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nic.at; s=it2019; h=From:From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-Id:Content-Type:Received:Received; bh=JnYvKj0ikj9uoVhj8wlfy44unCfO5FHM21LDlXCFtGg=; b=lg7J37HqURaHlUBEXJCHA+nSCEPnB5SdK6nOeew8RiREwcHMlVnccEuhiQmATdDm/bD+lL0T/wNX0KAm9QAqGDFh9flB7j8sU3wWCrblYt2HwwQUufI5c0//XqOBpF6bYo84ZWBqIby0ESRSdvzsEEUAtdRvld1bsEQlYSg/3FguippgwrAZXCBCMhfNsg7DHZzdAUOcxeZm8FFI0b9ZBhC+n7nfM8tD3/RAjDazm8na6Rw8m1aZjtFGbOAF5JRv7wG4rReqZjQUy9980g8Tr+PDxmBYW7hWKf8GrAhsklAxOPSTQjfVfOtjoPPqL4BO+8UgMOoEdXNscRp1Aqx8gw==;
Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.6]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) with XWall v3.56 ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:35:28 +0200
Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:35:28 +0200
Thread-Topic: Virtual Interim Meeting Question: XXXX and YYYY in rfc7482bis
Thread-Index: AdYdbyra+rPfchu6Q5ysOpCCeNQMkAAgMbHg
References: <1219a206956a4476a943e5ddf39292b6@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <1219a206956a4476a943e5ddf39292b6@verisign.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.11.83.53]
From: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> , "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:35:26 +0200
X-Assembled-By: XWall v3.56
Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE075B2439833@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at>
X-XWALL-BCKS: auto
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/nKaYJhRF2FvXurE6_Pd9CnwGiFA>
Subject: Re: [regext] Virtual Interim Meeting Question: XXXX and YYYY in rfc7482bis
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:35:38 -0000

Hello Scott,

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Hollenbeck, Scott
> Betreff: [regext] Virtual Interim Meeting Question: XXXX and YYYY in
> rfc7482bis

[AM] My point was that the text on the slide...

> "Syntax: domains?nsLdhName =<domain search pattern>
> Syntax: domains?nsIp =<domain search pattern> XXXX is a search pattern
> representing a domain name in "letters, digits, hyphen" (LDH) format
> [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server operator of a DNR YYYY is a
> search pattern representing a host name in "letters, digits, hyphen" format
> [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server operator of a DNR"

[AM] .. contained one query based on and LDH name, and one query based on an IP address, but both search patterns referred to LDH names. I had the impression that one of the search patterns would need to be an IP address (for the second query parameter). But I do admit that was an uneducated comment that I made without reading the document itself.

> He wondered where the XXXX and YYYY fit into the query syntax as shown on
> the slide The text on the slide didn't include all of the text from the
> document, so that's why these look disjoint. The XXXX and YYYY are actually
> part of other queries that appear in the same section. It's actually clear when
> you take a look at the document.

[AM] Thanks for clarifying. I'll go back and "read the source, luke".

Best,
Alex