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

Hello Scott,

Here is my (mostly minor) feedback:

  1.  4.8 For consistency with other examples, add spaces before and after ‘:’ in the publicIds example.
  2.  5.1 Similarly, add spaces before and after ‘:' in the entity example. (There could be other places in the whole doc.)
  3.  5.3 Should maxSigLife have a more normative reference (RFC 4034) than RFC 5910?
  4.  5.3 Figure 24: Handle in the entity object is XXXX but it is xxxx in links’ URIs.
  5.  5.4 Figure 26: Handle in the entity object is XXXX but it is xxxx in links’ URIs. Lastly, RFC 5952 recommends lowercase v6 notation (section 4.3); may lowercase (C00) in http://example.net/ip/2001:C00::/23 and likes.
  6.  5.4 Should startAddress be clarified as "a string representing the starting…”? Similarly, for endAddress description.
  7.  5.5 Should the "Autonomous System Number Entity Object Class” title be “The Autonomous System Number Object Class”?
  8.  5.5 So as to hold 4-byte ASNs (0 to 4294967295), should we clarify the JSON number as uint32 (unsigned) (as per https://developers.google.com/discovery/v1/type-format)?
  9.  5.5 Should name be clarified as "a string representing an identifier…”?

Thanks,
Jasdip

On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

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 <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:21 AM
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
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
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
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
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext