Subject: [regext] Host update and removing V6 glues aka comparison normalized and compressed representation

From: InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:24 +0200

Hi All,

we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
removing v6 addresses.

I think its not clearly defined that host address should be normalized
for comparison.

In our case a host info return:

  <host:addr ip="v6">2001:4b3:624:1::b051</host:addr>

An Update is done with following:

  <host:rem>
     <host:addr ip="v6">2001:4b3:624:1:0:0:0:b051</host:addr>
  </host:rem>

and it failed on registry side.

What should be the correct behave in such situations ?

Regards

Marco Schrieck

PS:
IP addresses are anonymized.

-- 
InterNetX GmbH
Johanna-Dachs-Str. 55
93055 Regensburg
Germany

Tel. +49 941 59559-0
Fax  +49 941 59579-050

www.internetx.com
www.facebook.com/InterNetX
www.twitter.com/InterNetX

Geschäftsführer:
Thomas Mörz (CEO), Hakan Ali
Amtsgericht Regensburg, HRB 7142

---

From: Rubens Kuhl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:19:05 -0300

While my experience is more with host attributes registries, I wonder if removing the single address of a host object would be forbidden because that is actually leaving the object with no content at all.
Does the same happen if the object already had a v4 and a v6 address, and you then remove one of them ?

Rubens

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 08:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

---

From: Volker Janzen Notify <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:46:24 +0200

Hi Rubens,

IPs are only required for GLUE host objects. For non-GLUE host objects
it's okay to have no IPs at all (and possible IPs are prohibited for
non-GLUE by the EPP server). GLUE hosts without IPs make no sense. This
should result in an error on the EPP server.

A common case for removing an IP is renumbering a nameserver. The EPP
add/rem logic would require an add new IPv6 / rem old IPv6.

Regards
	Volker

---

From: Thomas Corte <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:43:43 +0200

Hello,

> What should be the correct behave in such situations ?

While it may not be explicitly specified, I think that anything but
normalizing the addresses prior to a comparison would be highly
unprofessional. It wouldn't cross my mind to regard the two addresses
above as different in this context.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
     |       |
     | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
      -------                    Technologiepark
                                 Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
                                 44227 Dortmund
                                 Deutschland

     Dipl.-Informatiker          Tel:    +49 231 9703-0
     Thomas Corte                Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
     Stellvertretender Leiter    SIP:    [email-masked]
     Software-Entwicklung        E-Mail: [email-masked]

                                 Registereintrag:
                                 Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728

                                 Geschäftsführer:
                                 Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:25:37 +0200

> we found out that different registries have a strange behave while

[..]

> What should be the correct behave in such situations ?

RFC 5952
A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
August 2010, Standards Track

Selected quotes:
It is expected that the canonical format
   will be followed by humans and systems when representing IPv6
   addresses as text, but all implementations must accept and be able to
   handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format.

3.2.1.  General Summary

   With all the possible methods of text representation, each
   application must include a module, object, link, etc. to a function
   that will parse IPv6 addresses in a manner such that no matter how it
   is represented, they will mean the same address.

The recommendation
   in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when generating an
   address to be represented as text, but all implementations MUST
   accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
</quote>

It seems to me that the system (EPP server) should accept the IPv6 in any legit format and map it to its internal format whatever it chooses to use, before applying any other kind of business rule, such as accepting or refusing the command.

> IP addresses are anonymized.

Next time, for obfuscation, use guidance from RFC 3849.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  [email-masked]