[regext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-16: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 18 September 2020 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
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 B0E843A03F2; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging@ietf.org, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org, Tom Harrison <tomh@apnic.net>, tomh@apnic.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <160043414369.27718.13984513177906805196@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:02:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/a31TJLCh1c2fY_cyVUFjMa5Vokw>
Subject: [regext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:02:24 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-16: 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:


Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points (but, to be honest, I
was close to put a DISCUSS about server performance impact that is not fully
addressed in the security section).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,




-- Section 2.1 --
I find the wording a little confusing in ""totalCount": "Numeric" (OPTIONAL)
...  It MUST be provided if and only if ...". While I understand the meaning,
would another wording avoid the conflicting "OPTIONAL" <-> "MUST" ? I.e., the
"OPTIONAL" could possibly be removed.

-- Section 2.2 --
I am concerned that a server having to compute "totalCount" (even if only to
return the first 10 entries) may spend a lot of time computing this number in
the absence of index... The security section does not offer a definitive answer
to this issue IMHO. E.g., I would prefer to allow the server to refuse to serve
"totalCount" until the last page (and even).

-- Section 2.3 --
Is there a reason why RFC 5952 was not used to represent the IPv6 address ?

I am concerned that a server having to sort on client-side selection of
properties may have a huge performance impact in the absence of relevant DB
indexes.The security section does not offer a definitive answer to this issue

-- Section 2.3.1 --
Is there a reason for this unusual writing of 'ipV4' (uppercase V) ?

-- Section 2.4 --
Suggestion: mention that the cursor value is opaque for the client ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 2.2 --
Is a 'figure' element really required for a single line example ?

Should the URI be
"https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*example.com&count=true" (also
applicable to section 2.3)