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

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott,

please find my comments below.

Il 06/05/2020 20:50, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> Thanks, Mario! More below.
>
>   
>
> 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"
>
> [SAH] I'll change lunarNic to lunarNIC. I'm also going to change the text in 4.1 a bit to be clear that these string literals are the values that should be registered with IANA and returned in RDAP responses. There won't be any confusing mention of prefixes.
OK.
>
> Section 4.2: I would replace "on the Internet" with "on the Web"
>
> [SAH] Is there any chance that one or more of the URLs might refer to something other than an http-accessible resource? I'm not sure, so I think I'd like to keep this as "Internet" rather than "Web".

No problem. I suggested "Web" instead of "Internet" because it seemed to 
me more compliant with the definition included in RFC5988 and RFC8288.

> Section 4.2: It seems to me that, according to Section 3 of RFC5988, the members "value", "rel" and "href" are all required.
>
> [SAH] I agree, so I'll change "The "href" JSON value MUST be specified" to "The "value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified".
OK
>
> 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. "
>   
> [SAH] I agree, will fix.
>   
OK
>
> 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.  "
>   
> [SAH] I'm not sure about this one. The current text doesn't say anything about any of these values being OPTIONAL (it says "The "events" array consists of objects, each with the following members"), so, by default, I understand the text to mean that they're all REQUIRED. I could say "The "events" array consists of objects, each with the following REQUIRED members". Would that work?
All the "event" objects appearing in the doc include both the 
"eventAction" and "eventDate" members and only sometimes the remaining 
two members so we can derived that only "eventAction" and "eventDate" 
are required.
>
> Section 4.8: I would clearly define that both the members of the "publicId" object are required.
>
> [SAH] OK. I'll change "with each object containing the following members" to "with each object containing the following REQUIRED members".
OK
>
> 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?
>
> [SAH] Maybe one of the RIR guys can address this question. Jasdip? Tom? Anyone?
>
> 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
>
> [SAH] Agreed, will fix.
OK
>
> 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."
>   
> [SAH] I'll change this to "with all appropriate values given". I don't believe entities are commonly associated with name servers.
OK
>
> Section 6: Is the "description" property required in the error response ?
>
> [SAH] According to the current text, yes.
OK
>
> Section 10.2.3: Does the "transfer" event action refer to "transfer between registrars" instead of "transfer between registrants" ?
>
> [SAH] I think the intention was "between registrars", but it's also possible for objects like domains to be transferred between registrants. The current IANA registry entry says "from one registrant to another". We may need to submit an erratum for this since the IESG is the controller for values in this registry.
>
> Appendix C: I would enclose in quotes the word label in the sentence "... It uses the label attribute..."
>
> [SAH] Agreed, will fix. Thanks for the detailed review!

OK

Best,

Mario

>
> Scott
>
-- 
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
#pleasestayathome