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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:30 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-
> rfc7482bis-02: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
> 
> 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.)

[SAH] [snip]

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

[SAH] Will fix.

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

[SAH] I'll keep these as-is since they were inherited from 7482.

> 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?

[SAH] I'm going to blame that on one of the WEIRDS co-chairs ;) who reviewed 7482.

I agree that it might help to add some more text to explain the rationale for the SHOULD. I don't recall why we used SHOULD here, other than noting that there may be some other response code that might be more appropriate based on a server's policy settings. A server that doesn't support search at all, for example, might instead return a 405 response code. Hmm, might this be an appropriate explanation right here?

Scott