Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 3:43 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-
> rfc7483bis-00.txt
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> please find my comments below.
> 
> Il 06/05/2020 20:50, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> > Thanks, Mario! More below.

[snip]

> > Section 4.5: I would clearly define which members of the "event" object
> are required and which ones are optional by using the key words described in
> RFC2119. Maybe the  paragraph below Figure 11 could be written like in the
> following:
> >
> > "  The "events" array consists of objects, each with the following
> >     members:
> >
> >     o  "eventAction" -- a string denoting the reason for the event
> >
> >     o  "eventActor" -- an identifier denoting the actor
> >        responsible for the event
> >
> >     o  "eventDate" -- a string containing the time and date the event
> >        occurred.
> >
> >     o  "links" -- see Section 4.2
> >
> >     Both the "eventAction" and "eventDate" JSON values MUST be specified.
> All other JSON values are
> >     OPTIONAL.  "
> >
> > [SAH] I'm not sure about this one. The current text doesn't say anything
> about any of these values being OPTIONAL (it says "The "events" array
> consists of objects, each with the following members"), so, by default, I
> understand the text to mean that they're all REQUIRED. I could say "The
> "events" array consists of objects, each with the following REQUIRED
> members". Would that work?
> All the "event" objects appearing in the doc include both the "eventAction"
> and "eventDate" members and only sometimes the remaining two members
> so we can derived that only "eventAction" and "eventDate"
> are required.

It's also possible that the examples are broken. Unfortunately, this is a place where the spec is unclear. What have people actually implemented?

[snip]

> > Section 5.1: I wonder which kinds of relationships model both the entity
> properties "networks" and "autnums". I mean, do they model the reverse
> relationships between, respectively, a network or an autnum and the related
> entities or something else?
> >
> > [SAH] Maybe one of the RIR guys can address this question. Jasdip? Tom?
> Anyone?

Jasdip responded to this yesterday. Does anything need to change as a result?

Scott