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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 27 July 2020 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
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 BF6F63A08F8; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 2DznOILxCma8; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-f170.google.com (mail-il1-f170.google.com [209.85.166.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C01EE3A090F; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-f170.google.com with SMTP id e18so14480081ilr.7; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dtpUYXlUIDPS5JZQOLVDh9sz00PiYqVTNWbeRdfKVjA=; b=Y1zRcq1rw9ji8g2OSLTi0j6G+vCHEHR3Ix2pW5szuNgXg3l1GkfYTKEtlCXrdSlLRO c6/at1okmBtq4hTPq1Xt2hoVjpS3EZg8kGt+UlOs1DGcxDjo1xEvC1N0XbFYJEfjAEjY qUib5MZdrmecj4L91wLSwm+mdvuIkh3m5NWmHfiP2lqKmEpKK98+tY7KRD9N9+qGP/2y kg5z0lpOArXl7KkhlRhmuxawq/aVgYkUqMeC5MlCds4UWgsUXL7vjCF6rnfsttTftMue vfCntxvByHyGY2H9bWogG972je43IFOegdvcnuDDsXTJ7XmILwpFKsk48LGOD6j2k4qZ yq9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533U0GXN5562mkAehOOM4B5zNuLD6iHk2PIwRRQDnLiYlZO7RAUi XnCI5WOfT4FE9CvI2UpukQPGlfMYxKVW/AiL3vbU0Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/9e4OZ2Pj4uGPIsQGq22BFnK/kNBReJmYzTLGBW/BLmUmmkyAf49SdQHca0W3vlcdl7uUcMpV+rob0ZXKBHY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:8a8:: with SMTP id a8mr26645920ilt.52.1595888268800; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJKBsPa45SJo4Mt480NW==dDbXrsf-7KkUoB4DAkTqBX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <030bb178-e881-e060-9256-67d0775bb546@iit.cnr.it>
In-Reply-To: <030bb178-e881-e060-9256-67d0775bb546@iit.cnr.it>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:17:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKgWsPAhvycbb-Mz4V64RNDXOO1SxYYRssSr+ntZ-Ndsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
Cc: "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response.all@ietf.org>, regext <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/RITfQu-PSC8zVOiUUsmTk6Hd5j8>
Subject: Re: [regext] AD review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-12
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, 27 Jul 2020 22:17:53 -0000

Thanks for the quick response, Mario.  All good -- when you've
addressed all the last call comments, post a revised I-D... it can
wait until the end of the last call period.

Barry

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 7:17 AM Mario Loffredo
<mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
>
> 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