Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00

From: Francisco Arias <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:49:43 -0800

Hi Andy and Scott,

I have the following comments/questions on the
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00 draft.

- 2.1.  IP Network Path Segment Specification: you may want to include an
example for IPv6. Isn't there missing text about representation of IPv6
address in URLs?

- 2.2.  Autonomous System Path Segment Specification: doesn't say in which
format the AS has to be, shouldn't it say?

- 2.3.  Domain Path Segment Specification: specifies A-label format, I
think U-label format should be allowed too. This is and
internationalization issue.

- 3.  Extensibility: why do we need to have the "custom_" prefix? I'd
think is enough to require the path segments to be unique, perhaps an IANA
registry?

Regards,

__

Francisco.

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:56:51 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Francisco Arias
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 3:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00
> 
> Hi Andy and Scott,
> 
> - 2.1.  IP Network Path Segment Specification: you may want to include
> an example for IPv6. Isn't there missing text about representation of
> IPv6 address in URLs?
> 
> - 2.2.  Autonomous System Path Segment Specification: doesn't say in
> which format the AS has to be, shouldn't it say?

I'll let Andy talk to these.

> internationalization issue.

Yes, it's an i18n issue, and they way we propose to address it is to keep the protocol simple and specify *one* format that can be easily converted as needed.

> think is enough to require the path segments to be unique, perhaps an
> IANA registry?

We use "custom_" as an example. It's not there as a mandate.

Scott

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:06:47 -0500

> format the AS has to be, shouldn't it say?

Francisco,

I think we should add something, at least that representation according
to rfc5952 (not sure if that is the correct one to refer). So far whois
supports several representation, i.e:

2800::/48
2800:0:0::/48
2800:0::0/48

	About ASNs. At least for us (LACNIC) it appears to be a matter of policy:

Chapter 3, Policy Manual
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-3

"16-bit AS numbers were defined in RFC 1930 and integers ranging from 0
to 65535 will be used for their identification. Likewise, 32-bit AS
numbers were defined by RFC 4893 and integers ranging from 0 to
4294967295 will be used for their identification. In both cases the
"asplain" decimal value representation defined in RFC 5396 will be used."

	So, I would leave this open or to use "asplain" if all the RIRs support
the same format.

Regards,
as

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:15:57 +0000

>example for IPv6. Isn't there missing text about representation of IPv6

IPv6 addresses in the authority part of a URL must have square brackets
around it so as to allow parsing to distinguish between the IPv6 address
bytes and the colon for the port number. But these are in the path, so it
is unneeded.

>format the AS has to be, shouldn't it say?

I guess we should specify AS Plain, but the other form has been
deprecatedŠ at least I thought.

>internationalization issue.

The explanation is in Appendix C of JSON-Response.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-00#appendix-C

>think is enough to require the path segments to be unique, perhaps an IANA

"custom_" is an example. The short identifier token should be that used in
the IANA registry setup in the Using HTTP draft.

-andy