Hi Ed On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 09:54, Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Massimo,
On 21 Feb 2022, at 16:29, Massimo Candela via db-wg <db-wg@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