Hi Mark, Thank you for your review of this draft. Please find below our comments.
Also, please see [1] for the diffs in the updated draft. Thanks, Jasdip & Tom [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-10 From: Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Saturday, March 15, 2025 at 3:31 AM To: drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> Cc: algermis...@acm.org <algermis...@acm.org>, Julian F. Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>, Julian F. Reschke <julian.resc...@greenbytes.de>, regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [regext] Re: [IANA #1414866] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed (link-relations) The description given: > Indicates that the link context has a resource with geographic information at > the link target doesn't seem correct; I *believe* the intent is something like: > Refers to a resource with geographic information related to the link context [JS] Thanks for this correction. Updated the description, while also considering your next comment. Also, the name requested is extremely generic. If the intent is that this use will be specific to RDAP, the relation name should be correspondingly specific -- e.g., "rdap-geofeed". On the other hand, if the intent is to register a generic name, the language in the specification should explicitly indicate its generic semantics and separate the RDAP case more clearly (e.g., using a "type" attribute to indicate a media type). Moving the registration to a separate document would assist in this. [JS] Agreed. However, to have the specificity balance with the proposed “application/geofeed+csv” media type, we as authors would prefer to have “geofeed” as the relation type, instead of “rdap-geofeed”. The rationale is that this media type would be used by non-RDAP geofeed CSV-processing applications as well, beside the RDAP-centric applications. Since the “geofeed” term is commonly used in lieu of the more technically proper “IP geolocation feed” term from the core geofeed RFC 9632 that this draft refers to for the RDAP geofeed link purposes, hopefully it is specific enough to be registered from within the RDAP Geofeed draft rather than needing a separate document for the relation type. Updated registration: * Relation Name: geofeed * Description: Refers to a resource with IP geofeed location information related to the link context. * Reference: This document. > On 15 Mar 2025, at 8:24 am, 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 registration in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-09 for us? > Please see > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed/ > > The due date is March 28th. > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll > make the registration at: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ > > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewers, 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
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
