Re: [regext] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: (with DISCUSS)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Sounds good, Mario. I’ll be glad to clear when you’ve published version 25 with the update.

Thanks,

—John

> On Aug 24, 2023, at 6:29 AM, Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> thanks a lot for your review.
> 
> Please find my comments below.
> 
> Il 22/08/2023 22:55, John Scudder via Datatracker ha scritto:
>> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: Discuss
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9MYG1nsCA$
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9Pi5xWSPg$
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Thanks for this document. I have one concern, which should be easy to address.
>> 
>> It looks as though draft-ietf-jsonpath-base should be a Normative reference. In
>> fact, this is explicitly mentioned in the shepherd writeup (thank you!):
>> 
>>         > 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See
>>         the [IESG >     Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
>> 
>>         JSON Paths are depended on normatively in the document, but the
>>         reference for them is to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base, which is why that
>>         reference is informative.  (This is in keeping with e.g. RFC 8977,
>>         though in that case the reference was to the original description of
>>         the JSON Path behaviour at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9O9YhWGcA$ .)
>> 
>> However, that rationale doesn't make sense to me. If a normative reference is a
>> downref, "just stick it in the informative references section instead" is not
>> the appropriate fix, the usual thing is to keep it in the normative references
>> and then the RFC Editor deals with the mismatch by holding off on publication
>> of the dependent document, until the dependency is published (a so-called
>> "cluster").  In this case, draft-ietf-jsonpath-base is on the same IESG agenda
>> as draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search is, so there isn't even much reason to
>> worry that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search will be stalled for long if at
>> all, the two will likely move together.
>> 
>> The easiest way to resolve this DISCUSS would be to change the reference to
>> Normative. If for some reason that's considered unacceptable, I'd appreciate a
>> discussion explaining why, and why "make it an informative reference" should be
>> acceptable.
>> 
>> 
> [ML]  I fully agree with you.
> 
> That reference is informative because I literally interpreted Note 4 but
> it should be normative.
> 
> I'll move it to the Normative References.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mario
> 
>> 
>> 
> --
> Dott. Mario Loffredo
> Senior Technologist
> Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
> Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
> National Research Council (CNR)
> via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
> Phone: [phone]
> Web: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9MArtTzAA$
>