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

From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:09 AM
To: regext@ietf.org; internet-drafts@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt

Hi Scott,

please find below some possible changes to RFC7483bis.

1) Section 1.2 - I would replace the following sentence:

OLD

simple data types conveyed in JSON strings

NEW

simple data types conveyed in JSON primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null)

[SAH] OK

2) Section 2.1 - I would replace the following sentence:

OLD 

In other words, servers are free to not
   include JSON members containing registration data based on their own
   policies.

NEW

In other words, servers are free to not
   include unrequired/optional JSON members containing registration data based on their own
   policies.

[SAH] Let me suggest a different rewording: "In other words, servers are free to omit unrequired/optional JSON members containing registration data based on their own policies"

3) Section 3 - There are some empty lines in the text.

[SAH] I'll try to fix those.

4) Section 4.1 - I would rewrite the following sentence using MUST or REQUIRED:

This data structure appears only in
   the topmost JSON object of a response.

[SAH] Suggestion: "This data structure MUST appear in the topmost JSON object of a response"

5) Section 4.4 - The following sentence  seems to be inconsistent with the content of some figures (e.g. Fig. 15, 17, 23, ...) where a "lang" element is included in jCard

   The "lang" attribute may appear anywhere in an object class or data
   structure except for in jCard objects.

[SAH] Agreed. I'll strike "except for in jCard objects".

6) Section 6 - I would uppercase the word "may" in the following sentence:

   Some non-answer responses may return entity bodies with information
   that could be more descriptive.

 In addition,  which members of an error response are required?

[SAH] Agreed on the use of MAY. The text says that an error includes all three fields (error code, title, and description). I believe that means that all three are REQIUIRED.

7) Section 10.2.3 - The definition of "last changed" event type seems to be inconsistent with "upDate" defined in RFC 5731,5732,5733. For example, I report an extract from RFC5731 here in the following:

   -  An OPTIONAL <domain:upDate> element that contains the date and
      time of the most recent domain-object modification.  This element
      MUST NOT be present if the domain object has never been modified.

So, should we redefine the "last changed" event accordingly? Should we change all the examples where "last changed" date is equal to "registration" date?

[SAH] I think we can leave this one alone. The meaning seems clear to me since we also have the registration event. We could change the examples, but before I do that I'd like to know what people have implemented. Do servers return this value for an object that has been registered, but never updated?

Best,

Mario

Il 08/06/2020 17:24, internet-drafts@ietf.org ha scritto:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the IETF.

        Title           : JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
        Authors         : Scott Hollenbeck
                          Andy Newton
 Filename        : draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt
 Pages           : 84
 Date            : 2020-06-08

Abstract:
   This document describes JSON data structures representing
   registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries
   (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs).  These data structures are
   used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query
   responses.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
#pleasestayathome