Hi Murray,
thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline.
Il 24/09/2020 09:57, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker ha scritto:
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I support Roman's DISCUSS point about resolving the JSONPath reference. I'm
working the chartering of the proposed "jsonpath" working group, so I'm happy
to contribute to resolving this. And a "thank you" to the document shepherd
for including this in the writeup. Another possible option is to cite
draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath, marking it as "work in progress", though I
think that's still tricky because we don't know for sure that changes produced
by the proposed working group will be fully backward-compatible with what this
document requires.
I also support Ben's DISCUSS point about multi-sorts.
[ML] As it is stated in the draft of JSONPath WG Charter
(https://github.com/jsonpath-wg/charter/blob/master/charter.txt), the
primary goal implementation is capturing the common semantics of
existing implementations. The JSONPath operators used in this document
are absolutely basic so I'm confident that this specification will be
fully compliant with the WG outcomes. I believe that the future JSONPath
specification will contain something more rather than something less
with respect to this document.
draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath couldn't be the reference draft so I'm
a bit doubtful about citing it.
Section 1:
A totally minor nit, but I think the reference to RFC 7230 should be up where
HTTP is first used.
[ML] OK. Maybe it could be more appropriate to insert the reference to
RFC 7231 that contains a section about the definition on new header fields.
Section 2.2:
The ABNF here reminds me that string literals in ABNF are case-insensitive (RFC
5234, Section 2.3). Just wanted to check that "COUNT=fAlSe" is fine here, for
example.
[ML] AFAIK, REST API libraries convert the cited strings into boolean
values regardless they are written so I wouldn't change anything.
Looking forward for your reply to my comments.
Best,
Mario
--
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
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
