IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Tue, 21 October 2014 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F9B1A1B26; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWRp2h7YoF3F; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og127.obsmtp.com (exprod6og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AA701A1B2D; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([72.13.63.42]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob127.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVEZOOuuHU6Y03ENGj8ebi73gE/VnXwTp@postini.com; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:15:20 PDT
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9LCEm5W003698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:14:48 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:14:47 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "<ops-dir@ietf.org>" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
Thread-Index: AQHP7NBqXufhXrOPI06XioFso+X0z5w6c6oQ
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:14:47 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F494EFB20@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <6332B2BF-2CAF-40B0-A1FD-97E3469B49ED@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <6332B2BF-2CAF-40B0-A1FD-97E3469B49ED@encrypted.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/weirds/dYTyovPpILtDU1giEksj5vjg3js
Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/>
List-Post: <mailto:weirds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:15:23 -0000

Thanks for the review comments, Sarah. More below...

Scott


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Banks [mailto:sbanks@encrypted.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:43 PM
> To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
> 
> Hello,
> 	I've reviewed draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15 for its operational
> impact.
> 
> Summary: The document is well written, thorough, provides ample
> discussion and examples, and even provides a change log in it's
> appendix. I have no objections to this document and believe it should
> be published
> 
> 	There are 2 nits from the nits checker for down refs.

I just ran the draft through the id-nits checker myself and found an unused reference to RFC 7159. It's a remnant from earlier text that was recently removed. The reference will be removed.

The downref warnings are to RFCs 952 and 1166 and Unicode-UAX15. I think those are OK.

There's also a warning about informative reference RFC 1594 ("where XXXX is a fully-qualified (relative to the root) domain name [RFC1594]") having been obsoleted by RFC 2664. The text we refer to exists in 1594, but not in 2664. There may be a better reference for "domain name" - perhaps RFCs 952 and 1123?

> 	Overall, I found the document very easy to read through, walking
> through the problem it's trying to solve, addressing each add section
> by section, with discussion points for each, and examples for each,
> too. One minor (personal) nit, is the requirement that WHOIS servers
> that don't or can't respond to a request SHOULD return a 501 error
> (RFC7231). In trying to provide some structure, it'd be nice to know
> explicitly that the server has/had an issue responding to the request.
> If the server chooses not to return a 501 in the event of an error,
> then what?

Would anyone in the WG object to this being a MUST? That would address the ambiguity.

> 	This aside, the document is ready for publication.

Thanks again,
Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email