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

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

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]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:21 AM
> To: [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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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