Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Mon, 02 March 2020 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070293A0036 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:04:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BYvWPDaOzBTn for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:04:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EC2E3A0040 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:04:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859DEB802AB; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:04:50 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wscTVUZ3BKAq; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:04:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE921B802B3; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:04:47 +0100 (CET)
To: Tom Harrison <tomh@apnic.net>
Cc: regext <regext@ietf.org>
References: <CF2EE8CE-DB07-4AFF-84D0-B80BA5E76D39@antoin.nl> <20200301234943.GH5595@tomh-laptop>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <eab9790b-da12-4c3f-0bce-65efbc0f584f@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:02:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200301234943.GH5595@tomh-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: it
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/MkT2L89aXXyle6vgBqu--FUo-yw>
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:04:56 -0000

Hi Tom,

thanks a lot for your further review.

My responses are included below.

Il 02/03/2020 00:49, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
> Hi Mario,
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:43:32PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>> The following working group document is believed to be ready for
>> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track
>> document:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
>>
>> This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 13 March
>> 2020.
>>
>> Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1”
>> is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by
>> replying to this message on the list.
> One extra comment: Section 4 has 'RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to
> include a "self" link in each field set other than "full" in order to
> allow clients to easily request for the full objects'.  This could be
> interpreted as meaning that the server should omit the "self" link
> when returning a "full" field set.  I think it would be good if this
> could be reworded to avoid ambiguity (e.g. by striking the text from
> "other than" onwards).

Even if self links are more meaningful in field sets other than "full", 
they might also be useful when an RDAP server provides the full 
information according to what is written in Section 5 of RFC7483. 
Therefeore, I will write the sentence as in the following:

"RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to include a "self" link in each field set"


Best,

Mario

>
> -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> 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