Hi David, We, the authors, are aware of this feedback and would be addressing it soon.
Thanks, Jasdip From: David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 at 1:55 PM To: Cc: regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search....@ietf.org <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search....@ietf.org> Subject: [IANA #1413017] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search (link-relations) Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs Please see below for comments from the expert. Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist On Tue Feb 18 19:54:52 2025, david.dong wrote: > Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs > > Please see below for comments from the expert. > > Best regards, > > David Dong > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > On Sun Feb 16 08:28:46 2025, m...@mnot.net wrote: > > David et al, > > > > Section 10.2 has a title of "Link Relations Registry" but the URL > > given is "https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/ > > rdap-extensions.xhtml" -- it looks like the intent is to register > > link relations given the content of the entries, so the URL needs to > > be corrected. > > > > Assuming that's the case, I see that 'up' is already registered, so > > that registration is not necessary. > > > > Both that and the remaining requests are extremely generic terms, and > > so aren't appropriate to register in a specific protocol's document; > > experience shows that doing so misleads readers to believe that these > > terms are specific to that protocol and not useable elsewhere. > > > > Instead, I'd suggest registering them in a separate, standalone > > document, using generic descriptions that are broadly applicable; your > > document can then refine their semantics in a specific context. I > > suspect the HTTPAPI WG would be amenable to such work. > > > > Alternatively, you could register link relation types specific to your > > application; for example, "rdap-up" and so forth. > > > > I also notice that you define compound link relation types, e.g., "up- > > active" and "top-active". Consider defining a separate "active" > > relation type (again, either generically, or specific to your > > application, depending on your preferences), which can then be used in > > combination with other types -- e.g., "top active" and "up active". > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb 2025, at 3:23 pm, David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-review- > > comm...@iana.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mark Nottingham, Julian Reschke, Jan Algermissen (cc: regext > > > WG), > > > > > > As the designated experts for the Link Relation Types registry, can > > > you review the proposed registrations in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir- > > > search-14 for us? Please see: > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search/ > > > > > > The due date is February 28th. > > > > > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, > > > we'll make the registrations at: > > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ > > > > > > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the > > > first response we receive. > > > > > > With thanks, > > > > > > David Dong > > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
