Subject: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-01

From: Alex Sergeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:23:27 -0500

Hi there,

Greatly improved document BTW!

I really want to just add couple minor things and not sure if they
were mentioned in -00 discussion or somewhere else:

*   case insensitivity is only mentioned in referenced documents,
nothing in response formatting, questions are:
   -  should server ever care about request/response using same case or not?
   -  should links (value, href fields in examples) be formatted same
way as "handle" or "name" elements? same about "registrationBy" and
other fields...
   -  can server implementation go crazy sending everything in mixed case?

*  some JSON examples are incorrectly formatted, needs JSONLint or
smth else run on them (most mess is from commas)

-- 
Alex.

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:27:50 +0000

>Greatly improved document BTW!

Thanks.

>   -  should server ever care about request/response using same case or

If you are talking about JSON names, they should be case sensitive. Though
I guess that's plainly spelled out. I could add some text pointing that
out.

>way as "handle" or "name" elements? same about "registrationBy" and

The intent was to follow the case sensitivity as quoted. The members of
the links objects actually use values specified in another RFC which
follows a different naming capitalization convention.

>   -  can server implementation go crazy sending everything in mixed case?

I would hope not.

>smth else run on them (most mess is from commas)

One was pointed out to me. If you see others please let me know.
I'll see about running some additional checks.

-andy

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:23:17 +0000

>I'll see about running some additional checks.

Actually, I went through all of them and fixed them. Thanks.

-andy

---

From: Alex Sergeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:03:50 -0500

Ah, great, one more question....

Does DNR object not supposed to have "roles" field in entities at all?
It's not in example and I wonder if that should be some kind of
"registrant/billing/tech" or something or it's planned to not do this
in DNR?

Alex.

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:34:40 +0000

>"registrant/billing/tech" or something or it's planned to not do this

No, it can have them. If we are beginning to find the split between the
RIR and DNR "inheritance" a little cumbersome, I can merge the two. This
split was originally done to show the unification of the RIR and DNR
world. But if the working group is past that then perhaps the document
would be easier to read if the two models were fully merged. I'm looking
for opinions here.

-andy

---

From: Alex Sergeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:05:44 -0500

Andy,

new comment/question:

Do you think the "The IP Network Object Class" (section 10) should
include "status" field to be similar to other objects?

-- 
Alex.