AD evaluation: Thanks, Andy, for a good shepherd writeup. It would be helpful, even if it seems redundant or obvious, to include an answer to the question about why Proposed Standard is the right status for this document.
The first paragraph of Section 3 is a bit confusing; it says you MUST NOT use any placeholder text as a replacement for a redacted value, and then I read the next sentence to suggest that there might actually be valid replacement placeholder text although it might not conform to the expected syntax. But on a second read, I think you're telling me that the reason it's MUST NOT is because there could be a syntax mismatch which could upset parsers. If that's correct, I suggest combining the sentences with "because" or "since". In Section 3.2, why are these two SHOULDs not MUSTs? What's the choice being offered here, and what guidance should we provide? Same question for the one in Section 3.3. Doesn't the method of Section 3.4 directly conflict with the MUST NOT in Section 3 (referenced above)? Also in Section 3.4, s/alternate/alternative/ In Section 4.2, for "prePath" and "postPath", this is a JSON path expression, not a JSON expression, correct? In Section 6.2, I suggest being precise: You're talking about the "RDAP JSON Values" registry. Thanks for including Section 7. -MSK, ART AD On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:24 AM James Galvin via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > James Galvin has requested publication of > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-13 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the > REGEXT working group. > > Please verify the document's state at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/ > > >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
