Re: [weirds] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-02.txt

[Tom Harrison <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 01:59:11PM +0100, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Hello,
>  here is a new version of the bootstrap document. This is a major rewrite based on the various concensus points during last meeting and followup, such as: JSON, using templates, IANA section rewrite, .... After some mailing list discussions and discussions with rdap-query authors, this draft hopefully covers the direction of the wg.
>  One can look at the diffs, but I'm not sure it is that valuable given major rewrite.

> "services": [
> ["entry1", "entry2", "entry3"]: {
>    "template": "{proto}://registry.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
>    "proto": [ https ],
>   },
> ["entry4"]: {
>    "template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}",
>   },
> ],
 
This is using arrays, instead of strings, as keys. Given that
"services" is not an object, but an array, is the structure meant to
be like this:

    "services": [
        [ ["entry1", "entry2", "entry3"], 
          { "template": "{proto}://registry.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
            "proto": [ "https" ] } ],
        [ ["entry4"], 
          { "template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}" } ]
    ]

instead?

> For example, a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches the com
> entry in one of the arrays of the registry.  Following the example
> above, the base RDAP URL for this query is
> "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/".  The {resource} specified in
> [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is then appended to the base URL to
> complete the query.  The complete query is then
> "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/domain/a.b.example.com".  This
> example is not normative.

This limits implementations to path-based lookup, since the object
type and the query value don't have separate variables. This isn't in
keeping with draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-05 [2.3], since an
implementation might prefer to use query processing instead. Should
there be text in the document explaining why this is OK in this case?

-Tom