[regext] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 30 July 2018 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: regext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4416130E51; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag@ietf.org, James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, regext-chairs@ietf.org, jgould@verisign.com, regext@ietf.org, tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153296860192.827.8824953027965906564.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:36:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Q-7joILoGjCLUp9J9KvmBrsl6f8>
Subject: [regext] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 30 Jul 2018 16:36:42 -0000

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04: No Objection

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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for writing this - it solves a useful purpose, and is clear and easy
to read.

I had 2 comments / questions - please also see Tim Chown'sOpsDir review for a
useful nit.

Section  2.  Object Naming Practice
The entire 'HYPHEN-MINUS' selection makes me slightly twitchy - the argument
that it was chosen because it is commonly already used as a separator feels
like it cuts both ways - the fact that 'Handles can themselves contain
HYPHEN-MINUS characters' already seems to argue that a different separator
should have been chosen to minimize the chance of collisions / people getting
this wrong.  I get that the document says "the service provider identifier is
found following the last HYPHEN-MINUS character in the tagged identifier", and
would feel more comfortable if some of the examples contained more than one
hyphen to make this clearer.

Section 7. Security Considerations
'The transport used to access the IANA registries can be more secure by using
TLS [RFC5246], which IANA supports.' I'm confused by this sentence in the
Security Considerations section - more secure than what, not using TLS? Why
isn't this something like "The transport used to access the IANA registries
SHOULD (or MUST) be over TLS"?