Subject: Re: [weirds] Last Call: <draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-13.txt> (HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)) to Proposed Standard

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:48:45 -0500

I'll leave the authors to respond on the nits; at first glance they all 
seem reasonable to address. On the two more substantive items:

On 10/17/14 9:15 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Comment 4
> ---------
>
> Section 6.
>
>
> Slight discomfort: I suppose this is not internationalizable given the
> nature
> of the programming tools being ASCII-based.  So no formal objection, but a
> desire to allow identifiers to be able to break out of a ASCII-only set
> ''is
> a pony I'd like to have.''
>
> No suggested change, but curious ... if ...
>    

Do note that the restriction described says SHOULD. To quote 2119, 
"there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a 
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and 
carefully weighed before choosing a different course." You *could* go 
look at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/ about using Unicode in 
identifiers, or you could go look at the Identifier Class in the 
soon-to-be-released 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/, and then 
try to use one of these for your prefixes, but you had better fully 
understand what you are embarking on. :-)

> Comment 6
> ---------
>
> Section 8.1
>
> Addition to third paragraph:
>
> Suggestion: ''For documentation in other than the RFC series, IANA is
> requested
> to hold in escrow copies of the documentation.'' (This was needed for a DNS
> RR type defined in an ATM Forum document.)
>    

This sounds like something that is not unique to this particular 
document (that is, any registry that uses "Specification Required" would 
have this issue), and might have weird copyright issues. I'm inclined 
*not* to put this in the IANA Considerations of this document, but 
rather mention this issue to IANA and/or IAB folks and let them work out 
a policy to deal with this on all registries that use "Specification 
Required", if that is needed.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:15:56 +0000

A few comments, mostly nits:

Comment 1
---------

Section 1.

##    The registration data expected to be presented by this service is
##    Internet resource registration data - registration of domain names
##    and Internet number resources.  These data is typically provided by

Nit: ''These data is'':
Perhaps - remove the ‘’The'' to start the paragraph and then ''Such data
are''
for the Nit. (Treat ‘’data'' consistently as singular or plural.)

Comment 2
---------

Section 3.

Nit: ''meant to return only one path of execution'' - perhaps ''follow one
path''?

Comment 3
---------

Section 5.6.

Nit: ''As the use of RDAP is for public resources'' is a judgement call.
Suggest
rewording as ''When RDAP is for public resources, a value of ‘*’. . .''

Comment 4
---------

Section 6.

Comment 5
---------

Section 7.

Nit: ''It does require the RDAP clients MUST support HTTPS.''
Nit: ''This document made'' should be ''This document makes''

Comment 6
---------

Section 8.1

Comment 7

---------

Appendix B

Nit: ''this is unlikely to have any known side effects'' - suggest ''this
will be[/ought to be] compatible with the RDAP definition.''

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:33:59 +0000

Responses inline...

On 18/10/2014 12:15 am, "Edward Lewis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Perhaps - remove the Œ¹The'' to start the paragraph and then ''Such data
>are''
>for the Nit. (Treat Œ¹data'' consistently as singular or plural.)

Good catch.  I suspect "These data is" was meant to be "This data is",
using "data" as a collective noun.  I agree with removing 'The', but
personally prefer "This data is".

>Nit: ''meant to return only one path of execution'' - perhaps ''follow one

How would s/return/require/ work for you?  The notion is that a protocol
matching this design intent would not lead to clients having branching or
tree searching operations, so for me "follow one path" describes a client
behaviour more than a protocol expectation.

>rewording as ''When RDAP is for public resources, a value of Œ*¹. . .''

I agree with the premise of this nit.  The entire sentence then reads:

When RDAP is for public resources, a value of "*" is suitable for most
cases.

How about something a little less tortuous:

A value of "*" is suitable when RDAP is used for public resources.

>Nit: ''This document made'' should be ''This document makes''

=> "It does require that RDAP clients MUST support HTTPS."

And agree on made => makes.

>will be[/ought to be] compatible with the RDAP definition.''

How about we be more assertive:

"... this is compatible with the RDAP definition."

Thanks for looking over the doc closely!

-- 
bje

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:12:20 +0000

As I’m a proven HTTP-in-email idiot and I think I can get away with this,
I’ll top post my answers.

Comment 1 - I’m as happy with data begin singular as well as plural, so long
as it’s consistent.  So, using the singular form is fine here.
Comment 2 - Yes, ‘require’ works.

For the rest - I agree with all of the offered fixes.

From:  Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date:  Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 20:33
To:  Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Andy Newton <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [weirds] Last Call: <draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-13.txt>
(HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)) to Proposed
Standard

>> Perhaps - remove the ¹The'' to start the paragraph and then ''Such data
>> are''
>> for the Nit. (Treat ¹data'' consistently as singular or plural.)
> 
>> rewording as ''When RDAP is for public resources, a value of *¹. . .''
>