Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt - Further feedback

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott,

here in the following a further feedback:


Section 5.3: the type boolean is missing in the definition of zoneSigned

Section 5.3.: the two nameservers related to the domain in Figure 24 
have the same "handle" value. In addition, even if, instances of 
different object classes are allowed to have the same "handle" value,  
it might be better to assign different values to all the handles 
included in Figures 23 and 24

Best,

Mario


Il 24/02/2020 16:15, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>
> Thanks, Mario. I’m waiting to see if anyone else has anything to say 
> before I jump into your suggestions and questions.
>
> Scott
>
> *From:* Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2020 4:17 AM
> *To:* Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: 
> draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> here in the following my feedback.
>
> Section 4.1.: Change "lunarNIC_level_0" with "lunarNic_level_0"
>
> Section 4.2: I would replace "on the Internet" with "on the Web"
>
> Section 4.2: It seems to me that, according to Section 3 of RFC5988, 
> the members "value", "rel" and "href" are all required.
>
> Section 4.3: I would clearly define which members of the 
> "notice/remark" object are required and which ones are optional by 
> using key words described in RFC2119. Maybe the second paragraph could 
> be written like in the following:
>
> "  Both are arrays of objects.  Each object contains an "title"
>     string representing the title of the object, an "type"
>     string denoting a registered type of remark or notice (see
>     Section 10.2.1), an array of strings named "description" for the
>     purposes of conveying any descriptive text, and an "links"
>     array as described in Section 4.2. The
>     "description" JSON value MUST be specified. All other JSON values are
>     OPTIONAL. "
>
> Section 4.5: I would clearly define which members of the "event" 
> object are required and which ones are optional by using the key words 
> described in RFC2119. Maybe the  paragraph below Figure 11 could be 
> written like in the following:
>
> "  The "events" array consists of objects, each with the following
>     members:
>     o  "eventAction" -- a string denoting the reason for the event
>     o  "eventActor" -- an identifier denoting the actor
>        responsible for the event
>     o  "eventDate" -- a string containing the time and date the event
>        occurred.
>     o  "links" -- see Section 4.2
>     
>     Both the "eventAction" and "eventDate" JSON values MUST be specified. All other JSON values are
>     OPTIONAL.  "
>
> Section 4.8: I would clearly define that both the members of the 
> "publicId" object are required.
>
> Section 5.1: I wonder which kinds of relationships model both the 
> entity properties "networks" and "autnums". I mean, do they model the 
> reverse relationships between, respectively, a network or an autnum 
> and the related entities or something else?
>
> Section 5.2: Self link's URIs in the example should contain either the 
> ldhName or the unicodeName. Similarly for other examples including 
> self links to domain or nameserver objects
>
> Section 5.2: The sentence "Figure 18 is an example of a nameserver 
> object with all values given." seems a bit mileading to me because the 
> example doesn't include the "entities" property. Maybe it could be 
> written like in the following:
>
> "Figure 18 is an example of a nameserver object with nearly all the information given."
>
> Section 6: Is the "description" property required in the error response ?
>
> Section 10.2.3: Does the "transfer" event action refer to "transfer 
> between registrars" instead of "transfer between registrants" ?
>
> Appendix C: I would enclose in quotes the word label in the sentence 
> "... It uses the label attribute..."
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
> Il 18/02/2020 13:31, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>
>     FYI, folks. This is the first version of 7483bis. It contains updates to address the known errata, described here:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7483
>
>     I need to fix the Unicode characters again, though. I'll do that with the next update. In the meantime, I could use help in documenting existing RDAP server implementations as described in the Implementation Status section. If you'd like to include a description of your implementation, please let me know and I'll get it in. I could also use help in confirming that xml2rfc didn't inadvertently change anything during the conversion from RFC format back to I-D format. Lastly, let's start to talk about any other needed clarifications. Are you aware of any? Send 'em to the list for discussion.
>
>     Scott
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: I-D-Announce<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>  On Behalf [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:21 AM
>
>     To:[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     Subject: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt
>
>     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>              Title           : JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
>
>              Authors         : Scott Hollenbeck
>
>                                Andy Newton
>
>              Filename        : draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt
>
>              Pages           : 80
>
>              Date            : 2020-02-18
>
>     Abstract:
>
>         This document describes JSON data structures representing
>
>         registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries
>
>         (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs).  These data structures are
>
>         used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query
>
>         responses.
>
>     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis/
>
>     There are also htmlized versions available at:
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00
>
>     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
>     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>
>     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     I-D-Announce mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>
>     Internet-Draft directories:http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html  orftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     regext mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     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: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> 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: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo