Thanks, Mario! More below.
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 4:17 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action:
draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt
Hi Scott,
here in the following my feedback.
Section 4.1.: Change "lunarNIC_level_0" with "lunarNic_level_0"
[SAH] I'll change lunarNic to lunarNIC. I'm also going to change the text in
4.1 a bit to be clear that these string literals are the values that should be
registered with IANA and returned in RDAP responses. There won't be any
confusing mention of prefixes.
Section 4.2: I would replace "on the Internet" with "on the Web"
[SAH] Is there any chance that one or more of the URLs might refer to something
other than an http-accessible resource? I'm not sure, so I think I'd like to
keep this as "Internet" rather than "Web".
Section 4.2: It seems to me that, according to Section 3 of RFC5988, the
members "value", "rel" and "href" are all required.
[SAH] I agree, so I'll change "The "href" JSON value MUST be specified" to "The
"value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified".
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. "
[SAH] I agree, will fix.
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. "
[SAH] I'm not sure about this one. The current text doesn't say anything about
any of these values being OPTIONAL (it says "The "events" array consists of
objects, each with the following members"), so, by default, I understand the
text to mean that they're all REQUIRED. I could say "The "events" array
consists of objects, each with the following REQUIRED members". Would that work?
Section 4.8: I would clearly define that both the members of the "publicId"
object are required.
[SAH] OK. I'll change "with each object containing the following members" to
"with each object containing the following REQUIRED members".
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?
[SAH] Maybe one of the RIR guys can address this question. Jasdip? Tom? Anyone?
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
[SAH] Agreed, will fix.
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."
[SAH] I'll change this to "with all appropriate values given". I don't believe
entities are commonly associated with name servers.
Section 6: Is the "description" property required in the error response ?
[SAH] According to the current text, yes.
Section 10.2.3: Does the "transfer" event action refer to "transfer between
registrars" instead of "transfer between registrants" ?
[SAH] I think the intention was "between registrars", but it's also possible
for objects like domains to be transferred between registrants. The current
IANA registry entry says "from one registrant to another". We may need to
submit an erratum for this since the IESG is the controller for values in this
registry.
Appendix C: I would enclose in quotes the word label in the sentence "... It
uses the label attribute..."
[SAH] Agreed, will fix. Thanks for the detailed review!
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
