[regext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with Alissa and others that this should make the disposition of RFC
7482 more explicit.

"REST" in the glossary is only ever used to defined the next term in it,
"RESTful".  It seems to me these could be consolidated.

In Section 4.1:

   If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
   because it does not support a particular style of partial match
   searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Entity)
   [RFC4918] response.

Why's that only a SHOULD?  What else might an implementer choose to do, and why
might that be a reasonable thing to do?  Or if there's no good answer to this,
maybe that should be a MUST?

Thanks for including Section 7.