Re: [regext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-17: (with COMMENT)

It seems to me that just defining here that when sorting by IP address, all
v4 addresses sort before all v6 addresses... makes sense and should not be
confusing.

Barry

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:22 AM Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
wrote:

> Hi Erik,
>
>
>
> thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline.
>
>
>
> Il 21/09/2020 08:52, Erik Kline via Datatracker ha scritto:
>
> > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
>
> > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-17: No Objection
>
> >
>
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > COMMENT:
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > [[ comments ]]
>
> >
>
> > [ section 2.3 ]
>
> >
>
> > * My current understanding is that it's not possible to request a sort by
>
> >    IP address in general (i.e. without regard to IP address family).
> Otherwise,
>
> >    since some IPv6 addresses (admittedly not any within the current
> 2000::/3
>
> >    GUA space) might be numerically less then some IPv4 addresses, I
> think there
>
> >    would probably need to be some text around relative ordering between
> IPv4 and
>
> >    IPv6 addresses regardless of numerical equivalent values.
>
> >
>
> >    But again: my reading is that sort can only be by ipV4 or ipV6 (and
> not just
>
> >    some generalized "ip" parameter), so this shouldn't be necessary.
>
> [ML] I think sorting by ipv4 or ipv6 is less confusing for consumers and
>
> more easy to implement for producers. Anyway, an RDAP server is free to
>
> provide the "ip" sorting property.
>
> >
>
> > [[ nits ]]
>
> >
>
> > [ section 2.1 ]
>
> >
>
> > * s/value of sort "parameter"/value of the "sort" parameter/ perhaps?
>
> [ML] Yes, absolutely.
>
> >
>
> > [ section 2.4 ]
>
> >
>
> > * I think the cursor value "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MAo=" might decode to
>
> >    'offset=100,limit=50\n' (with a trailing newline).  The base64
> encoding
>
> >    without the trailing newline might be 'b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MA==',
> but
>
> >    someone should double-check me on that.
>
> >
>
> [ML] You're right. I used a quick converter available on the web. I have
>
> just executed the conversion by the Base64 Java class methods and the
>
> correct encoding is "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MA==".
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Mario
>
>
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > regext mailing list
>
> > regext@ietf.org
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Mario Loffredo
>
> Systems and Technological Development Unit
>
> Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
>
> National Research Council (CNR)
>
> via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
>
> Phone: +39.0503153497
>
> Mobile: +39.3462122240
>
> Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
>
>
>
>