> -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> > Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 3:43 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, > > please find my comments below. > > Il 06/05/2020 20:50, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: > > Thanks, Mario! More below.
[snip] > > 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? > All the "event" objects appearing in the doc include both the "eventAction" > and "eventDate" members and only sometimes the remaining two members > so we can derived that only "eventAction" and "eventDate" > are required. It's also possible that the examples are broken. Unfortunately, this is a place where the spec is unclear. What have people actually implemented? [snip] > > 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? Jasdip responded to this yesterday. Does anything need to change as a result? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
