Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-10 Posted

[Pawel Kowalik <[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

Thanks for posting the new version incorporating the changes. I reviewed 
it and have few comments on that:

1. As the WG consensus seems to be to keep normative language in the 
form "placeholder text XXXX, MUST NOT be used for redaction" I would 
recommend to extend Abstract and Introduction accordingly, that the 
document also specifies allowed methods of RDAP response redaction.


2. The description of "path" member in 4.3 is now correctly describing 
all the cases for different redaction methods, but due to that it became 
very complex. I would still reconsider, if it wouldn't be better to have 
2 members "preredactedPath" and "redactedPath", which refer to 
pre-redacted response and redacted response accordingly. Then for 
different redaction method you would apply:

- Redaction By Removal Method: preredactedPath (OPTIONAL, same as path 
in -10)

- Redaction by Empty Value Method: redactedPath (MANDATORY, same as path 
in -10)

- Redaction by Partial Value Method: redactedPath (MANDATORY, same as 
path in -10)

- Redaction by Replacement Value Method: preredactedPath (OPTIONAL, same 
as path in -10) and redactedPath (MANDATORY, same as replacementPath in -10)

I see a clear advantage of this approach that the clients can always use 
"redactedPath" on the response object without tedious logic depending on 
redaction method.


Kind Regards,

Pawel