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

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

Thanks for the feedback, Jasdip. More below…



From: Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:28 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt



Hello Scott,



Here is my (mostly minor) feedback:



1.      4.8 For consistency with other examples, add spaces before and after ‘:’ in the publicIds example.
2.      5.1 Similarly, add spaces before and after ‘:' in the entity example. (There could be other places in the whole doc.)

[SAH] I’m not so sure. I haven’t found a normative style guide that describes spacing conventions, and I see inconsistent use of spaces in our own standard for JSON data interchange (see Section 13 of RFC 7159). I think I’d like to leave these alone.

3.      5.3 Should maxSigLife have a more normative reference (RFC 4034) than RFC 5910?

[SAH] maxSigLife doesn’t appear in RFC 4034, so I think 5910 is the appropriate reference.

4.      5.3 Figure 24: Handle in the entity object is XXXX but it is xxxx in links’ URIs.
5.      5.4 Figure 26: Handle in the entity object is XXXX but it is xxxx in links’ URIs. Lastly, RFC 5952 recommends lowercase v6 notation (section 4.3); may lowercase (C00) in http://example.net/ip/2001:C00::/23 and likes.

[SAH] Will fix.

6.      5.4 Should startAddress be clarified as "a string representing the starting…”? Similarly, for endAddress description.

[SAH] Will fix.

7.      5.5 Should the "Autonomous System Number Entity Object Class” title be “The Autonomous System Number Object Class”?

[SAH] Will fix.

8.      5.5 So as to hold 4-byte ASNs (0 to 4294967295), should we clarify the JSON number as uint32 (unsigned) (as per https://developers.google.com/discovery/v1/type-format)?

[SAH] will fix.

9.      5.5 Should name be clarified as "a string representing an identifier…”?

[SAH] Will fix.

Thanks,

Jasdip