Subject: [regext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7484 (5460)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:09:16 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7484,
"Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5460

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Pieter Vandepitte <[email-masked]>

Section: 8

Original Text
-------------
      In the case of a domain object, the client may first query the DNS
      to see if the respective entry has been delegated or if it is
      mistyped information by the user.  The DNS query could be to fetch
      the NS records for the TLD domain.  If the DNS answer is negative,
      then there is no need to fetch the new version of the registry.
      However, if the DNS answer is positive, this may mean that the
      currently cached registry is no longer current.  The client could
      then fetch the registry, parse, and then do the normal matching as
      specified above.  This method may not work for all types of RDAP
      objects.

Corrected Text
--------------

Notes
-----
I would remove the whole section. The point is: if the DNS answer is positive, then you need to fetch the registry. But if the answer is negative, this does not mean anything because it it possible that a registered domain is not delegated.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7484 (draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service
Publication Date    : March 2015
Author(s)           : M. Blanchet
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 08:38:06 -0400

Hello,
  thanks for reporting this. The original text was meant as some 
possible guidance on what to do for the implementor. However, the use of 
may and could in the text shows clearly that this is just one 
possibility, leaving the implementor more complex implementation 
algorithm. I’m not sure what is the best solution, one is what you 
suggest (delete text), other is to leave it as is (given the may/could 
usage), other is to make it more comprehensive. I’m pretty neutral to 
any at this point.

Regards, Marc.

On 14 Aug 2018, at 8:09, RFC Errata System wrote:

> I would remove the whole section. The point is: if the DNS answer is 
> positive, then you need to fetch the registry. But if the answer is 
> negative, this does not mean anything because it it possible that a 
> registered domain is not delegated.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:13:28 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 8:38 AM
> To: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7484
> (5460)
>
> Hello,
>   thanks for reporting this. The original text was meant as some possible
> guidance on what to do for the implementor. However, the use of may and
> could in the text shows clearly that this is just one possibility, leaving
> the implementor more complex implementation algorithm. I’m not sure what
> is the best solution, one is what you suggest (delete text), other is to
> leave it as is (given the may/could usage), other is to make it more
> comprehensive. I’m pretty neutral to any at this point.
>
> Regards, Marc.

I think the guidance is useful. I'd suggest leaving it as-is unless "better" text is proposed.

Scott

> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7484, "Finding
> > the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service".
> >
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected.
> > When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change
> > the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext