Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt

[Byron Ellacott <[e-mail]>]

Given this case could be generalised to a reverse lookup search function based on arbitrary attributes, including name server IP address, I would support an approach around an individual submission for a search API extension.  I could see this as generic across names and numbers, if it is merely asking, essentially, for all <x> type records where attribute <x->a> is some value <v>.

Privacy concerns about whether this function should be provided for a particular attribute, or at all, with or without authorisation, should remain a local operator decision - the draft should follow the rir-response aim of minimising policy decisions taken within a technical protocol specification.

  Byron

On 02/05/2012, at 2:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:23 AM
>> To: Arturo Servin
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt
>> 
>> So we're clear, this increases the likelihood that other
>> implementations than registry/registrar might extend the protocol in
>> non-uniform manners. Would be nice to avoid but I'm not going to fall
>> on my sword on this issue in this working group.
> 
> Such could be developed as individual submissions until this group finishes its first set of deliverables, and then we could re-charter to take on the extensions.
> 
> Just one possible path forward.
> 
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds