David, thanks for your review. Mario, thanks for updating the document. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Jul 27, 2020, at 2:12 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it > <mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks a lot for your review and feedback. I provide my answer to your > feedback below: > > Il 25/07/2020 00:47, David Schinazi via Datatracker ha scritto: >> Reviewer: David Schinazi >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq> >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-12 >> Reviewer: David Schinazi >> Review Date: 2020-07-24 >> IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-14 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: Document is clear, well-written, and short. Thank you! >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: After reading the document, I was somewhat >> confused as to the definition of fieldSet query parameter. >> I think adding a few sentences to Section 2 explaining that >> a field set is a string that the server generates which maps >> to a set of fields only known to the server would help. > [ML] It seems to me that both the concepts are already conveyed in the > document. Maybe they are not adequately clarified. > > The sentence "... whose value is a string identifying a server-defined set of > supported fields.." means that a field set name and the related list of > fields are defined by the server. > > With regards to the assumption that a field set is known only by the server, > this is not generally true. > > Both the field set names and the related list of fields might (hopefully > should) be shared by as many servers as possible to facilitate > interoperability as described in section 4. > > Moreover, the field sets together with other server features are expected to > be described in out-of-band documents like the RDAP profile. > > Finally, as described in section 2.1, the subsetting_metadata element could > provide an in-band information about the supported field sets that is more > reactive to server updates than out-of-band contents. > > Do you think that the concepts above should be furtherly clarified ? > > > I would say that clarifying this would be useful, because it wasn't clear to > me. > That said, I'm not very knowledgeable about RDAP so maybe I'm not the target > audience. > Though since this document might need to consumed by HTTP server operators > that don't know RDAP either, perhaps a clarification is worth the effort. > > >> Additionally, specifying that the string can't be empty and >> which characters are allowed might help avoid interop >> issues down the road. >> >> Nits/editorial comments: None >> > [ML] Agreed. > > But rather than updating section 2, I think that it would be better to change > the section 5 as in the following: > > OLD > > Each request including an unsupported field set SHOULD produce an > HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code. > NEW > > Each request including either an empty or an unsupported "fieldSet" value > SHOULD produce an > HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code. > Is it okay with you? > > > Yes, this would avoid the interop problem I was worried about. > Though using the word "non-empty" in section 2 wouldn't hurt. > Also, I would personally recommend making this a MUST rather > than a SHOULD so clients can rely on that behavior. > > David > > Best, > > Mario > >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list >> reg...@ietf.org <mailto:reg...@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >> <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: +39.0503153497 > Mobile: +39.3462122240 > Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo > <http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo>_______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
