Subject: Re: [weirds] Object inventory update

From: Edward Shryane <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:49:59 +0200

Hi all,

I'm a Software Developer in the Database Department in the RIPE NCC, we are interested in contributing to the object inventory update.

There are many RPSL object types, for both the Internet Number Registry and the Routing Registry operated by the RIPE NCC, that are not currently available via RDAP.

Should a new path segment be added to allow for querying for all of these objects, or will any additions be classified as entities?

Should a new path segment be added to query routing objects specifically?

How would differences in these object types between RIRs be addressed?

Regards,
Ed

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:40:40 +0800

Hi Edward,

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm a Software Developer in the Database Department in the RIPE NCC, we
are
> interested in contributing to the object inventory update.
> 

Thank you for your interest in this object inventory draft. We really need
the help from RIRs.

> There are many RPSL object types, for both the Internet Number Registry
and
> the Routing Registry operated by the RIPE NCC, that are not currently
available
> via RDAP.
> 
> Should a new path segment be added to allow for querying for all of these
> objects, or will any additions be classified as entities?
> 

The object inventory draft mainly reflects the existing objects used in the
Whois response. I think maybe we could talk about the RPSL objects in a new
section or in Appendix. 
For your questions whether we need a new path segment, I think we need more
opinions from WG.

Regards,
Linlin

---

From: Denis Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:34:49 +0200

Hi Linlin

Ed is on vacation this week but I would like to clarify some of what you 
said below.

> Whois response. I think maybe we could talk about the RPSL objects in a new

Perhaps we need to be clearer with use of terms here. The RIPE Database 
operates as an Internet Number Registry and a Routing Registry. They are 
physically and logically contained within the one database. All the 
existing objects in the RIPE Database are in RPSL format for both these 
registries.

So when 'we' think of a 'whois response' it includes objects from both 
registries. That is address space, ASNs, routes, all the various set 
object types and all the secondary objects like organisation, person, 
role and maintainers. These are all in RPSL format.

As APNIC and AFRINIC use the same RPSL structure as RIPE these objects 
are more or less the same. But they are quite different to ARIN and 
LACNIC in format, even though the content may be the same. Also not all 
RIRs operate a Routing Registry and many other organisations that are 
not RIRs and not Domain Name Registries do operate Routing Registries.

Is it the goal of RDAP to be able to query all of these registries for 
all this information?

Regards
Denis Walker
Business Analyst
RIPE NCC Database Team

> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Sep 2013 16:49:21 -0000

>Is it the goal of RDAP to be able to query all of these registries for 

To the extent possible, yes definitely.

Keep in mind that doesn't mean that all the RIRs have to provide the
same data or answer the same set of queries.  It does mean that for
the data they do provide, the query and response formats are the same.
If some RIRs respond to queries with the JSON equivalent of "I don't
know" for the stuff they don't handle, that's OK.

R's,
John