Subject: [regext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:47:55 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ section 4.5 ]

* For text representations you want RFC 5952 rather than 4291.

[ section 5.1.2.1.5, 5.2.2.1.3 ]

* It's not clear that ",v4" or ",v6" are adding anything. The IP address
  family should be unambiguous without the hint.

  No change necessary, it just seems like this isn't really needed.  (For
  example, if there's even a remote possibility someone might try to list
  IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses -- or even worse, compat addresses -- then
  there are going some other, much bigger problems ahead.)

[ section 5.4.1.1 ]

* Is it recommended at all that rdeRegistrar:url be https whenever possible?

* In addition to whois name/url should there RDAP information?  Or is the
  http/https whois URL expected to handle RDAP?