IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [weirds] Query Parameters

Francisco Arias <francisco.arias@icann.org> Fri, 04 May 2012 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <francisco.arias@icann.org>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B1221F847A for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9bhxKXWIsmZI for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520B921F8476 for <weirds@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:51:11 -0700
From: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias@icann.org>
To: Andy Newton <andy@arin.net>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 11:51:06 -0700
Thread-Topic: [weirds] Query Parameters
Thread-Index: Ac0qJt+AgxOPmgyMQYiGMGm0BMUZCw==
Message-ID: <CBC9719D.2C8A2%francisco.arias@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <3CA89753-5151-46B2-A0C7-2E84C7283265@arin.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [weirds] Query Parameters
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds>
List-Post: <mailto:weirds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 18:51:13 -0000

On 5/4/12 7:59 AM, "Andy Newton" <andy@arin.net> wrote:


>Given Francisco's suggestion, would it be worth teasing each of these out
>into separate drafts? That way ICANN can say that it's regulated
>registries support must support RFC 1, RFC 2, RFC 3, while other
>registries can simply say "we support RFC 1 and RFC 3". Or maybe put the
>domain name lookup in its own draft and the rest in a draft intended as a
>collection of the other things ICANN registries must do. Just a thought.

Yes, but I thing it goes beyond that. A registry(ar) would say "we support
RFC 1 (lookup) and RFC 3 (searches) on the following objects ... using the
following elements ..."

I'm thinking the searches document should probably simply specify how to
do the searches on any single object, using any combination of its
respective elements/attributes. But it would be up to each registry(ar) to
choose which combination to support. Therefore, as someone else suggested,
there has to be a response that signals "search not supported" or
something similar.

__

Francisco.

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status