Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-25: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-rdap-openid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-25 CC @larseggert Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/mS2UefXapDTAjcRYHkcT0-sP7WY). ## Comments ### Section 1.2, paragraph 0 ``` 1.2. Proposal ``` Should this section be re-titled now this is being published as an RFC? ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`, `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`, `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`, `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` * Term `native`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`, `ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### URLs These URLs in the document did not return content: * https://testprovider.rdap.verisignlabs.com/ * https://auth.viagenie.ca * https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/ These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html * http://curl.haxx.se/ * http://openid.net/connect/ * http://www.verisignlabs.com/ * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html ### Grammar/style #### Section 5.3, paragraph 5 ``` ely, an RDAP server MAY attempt to logout from the OP using the "OpenID Conn ^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean the verb "log out" instead of the noun "logout"? #### Section 6.1, paragraph 1 ``` sues, DNS resolution failures, and web site functional issues. -----END FORM- ^^^^^^^^ ``` Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word. #### Section 6.4, paragraph 1 ``` f use cases around informing the general public. -----END FORM----- 10. Imple ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Consider using only "public" to avoid wordiness. #### Section 9.3, paragraph 4 ``` te for a fully authorized client. Currently supported identity providers incl ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently". ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
