[db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis walker
ripedenis at gmail.com
Tue Feb 22 15:42:12 CET 2022
Hi Ed On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 09:54, Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Massimo, > > > On 21 Feb 2022, at 16:29, Massimo Candela via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > Thanks for the work done. > > > > Thank you! > > > > > On 21/02/2022 15:56, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > > > >> We will also start enforcing the same validation on "remarks: geofeed" as on "geofeed:" for consistency. > > > > I think you should not enforce anything on remarks. For what I know, remarks have been a free text field up to now. > > > > I agree! In general, Whois doesn't attempt to validate free-text fields, since they can contain anything, in any format. > > However, the RFC draft that we base the implementation on, allows for a "remarks: geofeed <url>" as an alternative to a "geofeed:" attribute: > > Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed: > attribute in the inetnum: class. Until such time, this document > defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an > HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format MUST be as in this example, > "remarks: Geofeed " followed by a URL which will vary. > > (Ref. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds) > Just a point on the RFC. As I have said in many discussions recently, wording is important. The RFC says "Until such time...". We have a "geofeed:" attribute now so we are past 'such time'. We should no longer even consider, or support, "remarks:'' as an option for geofeed. (Maybe after a defined transition period of time.) We have a precedent for this with abuse contacts. People used to put them in "remarks:" until we introduced "abuse-c:". Now we advise people to use "abuse-c:" and not put abuse contact details in "remarks:". We should give the same advice for "geofeed:". Of course some people still put abuse details in "remarks:" as well, and they may continue to do so with "geofeed:". It has a free text format so people can put whatever they like there and the DB software should not try to parse it in any way. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]