IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Tue, 21 October 2014 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C861A6F49; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 DzDA0Jskf4sC; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A26F1A6F2B; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:02 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:48:02 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "<ops-dir@ietf.org>" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
Thread-Index: AQHP7TWh/IGDJFck0UqVjJPdfQ5vtw==
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:48:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D06BDC06.4C87%edward.lewis@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.5.141003
x-originating-ip: [68.98.142.232]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3496729679_177175"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/weirds/tPKBV67-r1Hq7sJsAY0NtdRZzTQ
Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:48:09 -0000


From:  <Hollenbeck>, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:  Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 8:14
To:  Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "<ops-dir@ietf.org>"
<ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org>
Cc:  "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query

> Thanks for the review comments, Sarah. More below...
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Sarah Banks [mailto:sbanks@encrypted.net]
>>  Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:43 PM
>>  To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org
>>  Subject: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
>>  
>> 
>> Overall, I found the document very easy to read through, walking
>>  through the problem it's trying to solve, addressing each add section
>>  by section, with discussion points for each, and examples for each,
>>  too. One minor (personal) nit, is the requirement that WHOIS servers
>>  that don't or can't respond to a request SHOULD return a 501 error
>>  (RFC7231). In trying to provide some structure, it'd be nice to know
>>  explicitly that the server has/had an issue responding to the request.
>>  If the server chooses not to return a 501 in the event of an error,
>>  then what?
> 
> Would anyone in the WG object to this being a MUST? That would address the
> ambiguity.

Assuming “WHOIS server" -> “RDAP server" in the above, yes, a MUST.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email