[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9536 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-25> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors and *AD,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

*AD, please review question #6 and let us know if you approve.

1) <!--[rfced] May we clarify "with another" to be "with another query"?
And should "in relationship with" be "that relates to" instead?

Original:
   Through a further step of generalization, the meaning of reverse search
   in the RDAP context can be extended to include any query for retrieving
   all the objects in relationship with another matching a given search
   pattern.

Perhaps:
   Through a further step of generalization, the meaning of reverse search
   in the RDAP context can be extended to include any query for retrieving
   all the objects that relates to another query matching a given
   search pattern.
-->   


2)  <!--[rfced] We note that both "data is" and "data are" are
used. Please review and confirm the intent in Section 5 is
singular and Appendix A is plural.

Current

Section 5:
   This data is included in the search response, rather than in 
   the help response, because it may differ depending on the 
   query that is sent to the server.

Appendix A:
  * Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC): Rules to manage access
    rights are evaluated and applied according to specific attributes
    describing the context within which data are requested.
-->     


3) <!--[rfced] Please review and consider whether the "type" attribute of the sourcecode elements in the XML file should be set.

The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt. If the current
list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions
for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type"
attribute not set.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Figure titles (Section 8)

a) For the title of Figure 2, may we update "reverse_search_properties_mapping" 
to "reverse_search_properties" to match the contents of the figure?

Original:
   Figure 2: An example of help response including the
             "reverse_search_properties_mapping" member

Perhaps:
   Figure 2: An Example of Help Response including the
             "reverse_search_properties" Member

b) For the title of Figure 3, may we update "reverse_search_properties" 
to "reverse_search_properties_mapping" to match the contents of 
the figure?

Original:
   Figure 3: An example of an RDAP response including the
            "reverse_search_properties" member

Perhaps:
   Figure 3: An Example of an RDAP Response including the
            "reverse_search_properties_mapping" Member
-->


5) <!--[rfced] We have included specific questions about the IANA
text below. In addition to responding to those questions, please
review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know
if any further updates are needed.

a) IANA does not list "Section 8" of this document as a reference for
all entries in the "RDAP Reverse Search" and "RDAP Reverse Search
Mapping" registries. Would you like both IANA registries to reflect
"Section 8", or should "Section 8" be removed from the Reference 
column in Table 1 of this document (Section 11.2.3.2)?

Current (Table 1):
   | Reference | RFC 9536, Section 8 |

b) We updated the templates in Sections 11.2.3.1 and 11.2.4.1 to match
the corresponding header names in the "RDAP Reverse Search" and "RDAP
Reverse Search Mapping" registries. Would you like to order both
templates to match how they appear at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-reverse-search/> and
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-reverse-search-mapping/>?

Example for the "RDAP Reverse Search" registry template (Section 11.2.3.1)
Original:
   Searchable Resource Type
   Related Resource Type
   Property
   Property Path
   Description
   Registrant Name
   Registrant Contact Information
   Reference

Perhaps:
   Property
   Description
   Searchable Resource Type
   Related Resource Type
   Registrant
   Contact Information
   Reference

c) FYI, we have updated the section numbers in the citations listed in
the sentences below so that they now point to the appropriate sections.

Original:
   These registries follow the Specification Required process as defined
   in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126].

   The designated expert should prevent collisions and confirm that
   suitable documentation, as described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126], is
   available to ensure interoperability.

Current:
   These registries follow the Specification Required registration policy, 
   as defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126].

   The designated expert should prevent collisions and confirm that
   suitable documentation, as described in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126], is
   available to ensure interoperability.
-->   


6) <!--[rfced] *AD - The authors removed the definition of "Description"
in Section 11.2.4.1 in version -26 that was submitted after the
document was added to the RFC-ED queue. Please review and let us
know if the removal of this definition is acceptable. Note that
with this change, the template now matches the "RDAP Reverse
Search Mapping" registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-reverse-search-mapping/>.

Original:
   "Property Path":  The JSONPath of the RDAP property this reverse search
      property maps to.

   "Description":  A brief human-readable text describing this reverse
      search property mapping.

   "Registrant Name":  The name of the person registering this reverse
      search property mapping.

Current:
   Property Path:  The JSONPath of the RDAP property this reverse search
      property maps to.

   Registrant:  The name of the person registering this reverse
      search property mapping.
-->


7) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 6973 does not include "misuse of information", but      
it does include "misuse of data". May we update the item listed?

Original:
   Providing reverse search in RDAP carries the following threats as
   described in [RFC6973]:

   *  Correlation
   *  Disclosure
   *  Misuse of information
-->   


8) <!--[rfced] Regarding the reference entry for [ICANN-RA], would
you prefer to link to the landing page for the Base Registry
Agreement as shown below, where the reader may access a DOCX,
PDF, or HTML version of the most current registry agreement
(2024)? Note that the July 2017 version is archived and also
available from this landing page. Please let us know your
preference.

Original:
   [ICANN-RA] Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
              "Registry Agreement", July 2017,
              <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
              agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.

Perhaps:
   [ICANN-RA] ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement", January 2024,
              <https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements/
              base-agreement>.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] The URL in the reference entry below redirects to
<https://lookup.icann.org/en>. Please review and let us know how
the URL may be updated.

Original:
   [ICANN-RDS2]
              Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
              "Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD RDS to
              Replace WHOIS", October 2015,
              <http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-
              issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf>.
-->	      


10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 
and let us know if any changes are needed.

For example, please consider whether "whitelisting" should be updated.

Additionally, please review the usage of pronouns indicating gender (i.e., "his"
and "he") in Appendix A and let us know if you would like to use gender-neutral
text (e.g., "its" or "their") instead.

-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/kc


On Mar 8, 2024, at 2:01 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/03/08

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9536.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9536

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9536 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-25)

Title            : Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse Search
Author(s)        : M. Loffredo, M. Martinelli
WG Chair(s)      : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren

Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini