Re: [regext] AD review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-12

Hi Barry,

thanks a lot for your review and feedback. I provide answers to your 
feedback below.

Il 24/07/2020 20:16, Barry Leiba ha scritto:
> Thanks so much for the recent editorial work on this document: 
>  Version -12 is easy to read and clear, and I’m happy to sent it to 
> last call.  I have some review comments below, but they’re all minor 
> and can be handled as part of the last call comments.  I will request 
> last call on this right after I send this note.
>
> — Section 1 —
>
>    Several leading API providers [LINKEDIN] [FACEBOOK] [GOOGLE]
>    implement partial response features by providing an optional query
>    parameter through which clients identify the fields they wish to
>    receive.  Support for partial responses is also considered a leading
>    principle by many best practice guidelines in REST API implementation
>    [REST-API1] [REST-API2] in order to improve performance, save on
>    bandwidth and possibly accelerate the overall interaction.  In other
>    contexts, for example in digital libraries and bibliographic
>    catalogues, servers can respond according to different element sets
>    (i.e. "brief" to obtain a short response and "full" to obtain the
>    complete response).
>
> Maybe it’s just me, but I find that paragraph unnecessary.  I suggest 
> simply removing it (and the references it cites) as extraneous.  This 
> is a suggestion, not a requirement, so if the working group has a 
> reason to keep the paragraph, that’s OK.  I just think it doesn’t add 
> anything useful to the document beyond what’s in the other paragraphs 
> here.
>
[ML] OK.

I remove the paragraph and update the first paragraph in Appendix A 
accordingly:

OLD

    Looking at the implementation experiences described in Section 1, two
    approaches to the implementation of partial response are observed:

NEW

    Looking at the implementation experiences of partial response, two
    approaches are observed:

— Section 1.1 —

> Please use the exact boilerplate from RFC 8174.
[ML] OK
>
> — Section 4 —
>
>    o  "id": the server provides only the key field, respectively:
>       "handle" for entities, "ldhName" for domains and nameservers.
>
> Nit: Please remove “, respectively”, as it’s misused here.  Correct 
> use (though I don’t suggest this change) woud be, ‘the server provides 
> only the key field: “handle” or “ldhName” for entities or domains and 
> nameservers, respectively.’
>
[ML] OK
>    RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to include
>
> This is correct and fine as written, but I think it reads better in 
> active voice as, “RDAP providers  SHOULD include”.
>
[ML] OK
>    Fields included in the "brief" and "full" field sets MUST be returned
>    according to the user's access and authorization levels.
>
> What is the focus of this sentence?  Is it about what MUST be 
> returned?  Or that authorization levels MUST be applied?  I think it’s 
> the latter, but it’s not clear from the wording.  If I’m right, it 
> might be better worded this way (adjust as appropriate to give the 
> emphasis you really intend):
>
> NEW
>    Fields included in the "brief" and "full" field set responses MUST
>    take into account the user's access and authorization levels.
> END
>
[ML] Sounds better.
> — Section 6 —
> Please make the contact “IETF”, rather than “IESG”.
>
[ML] OK

Best,

Mario

> —
> Barry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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