Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Russ Housley for the ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/XJJLbQHKjAxsAlScJL3BKX9vMOA/ and Carsten Bormann for providing CDDL feedback (more below). I have a couple of non-blocking comments, but I would really appreciate an answer. Francesca 1. ----- FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19. 2. ---- Section 10.2 FP: This section is quite clear, but I can't not notice that CDDL (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8610) would have been a good addition to this document. Here is a proposal rdap-bootstrap-registry = { "version": tstr, "publication": tstr, ? "description": tstr, "services": [+ service] } service = [ entry-list, service-uri-list ] entry-list = [+ entry: tstr] service-uri-list = [+ service-uri: tstr] Note that I have marked each of the services, entry-list and service-uri-list arrays as containing "one or more" element - if these arrays can be empty, then "+" should be replaced by "*". Which raise the question - can any of them be empty? What would be the meaning in that case? And also nicely shows why defining the CDDL is always a Good Thing. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
