ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2014-10-21 19:34:31
Responses inline...

On 18/10/2014 12:15 am, "Edward Lewis" 
<edward(_dot_)lewis(_at_)icann(_dot_)org> wrote:

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 ?¹The'' to start the paragraph and then ''Such data
are''
for the Nit. (Treat ?¹data'' 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".

Comment 2
---------

Section 3.

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

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.

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 ?*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.

Comment 5
---------

Section 7.

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

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

And agree on made => makes.

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.''

How about we be more assertive:

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

Thanks for looking over the doc closely!

-- 
bje

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature