Hi Alice, Please see my comments inline, marked [JS].
Thanks, Jasdip From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Monday, December 22, 2025 at 1:42 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9910 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-19> for your review <snip> 2) <!--[rfced] search response vs. response code vs. response The original uses various terms ("search response" and "response code" and "response") after an HTTP status code. Would you like to update "search response" to "response code" to match 2 instances in this document or "status code" to match the cited document (RFC 9110) or otherwise? For example: Original: ... with a HTTP 404 (Not Found) [RFC9110] search response. Option A: ... with an HTTP 404 (Not Found) [RFC9110] response code. Option B: ... with an HTTP 404 (Not Found) [RFC9110] status code. —> [JS] Option B. 3) <!-- [rfced] In Figure 5, two lines are longer than the line limit. To resolve this, is moving the two lines to the left as shown below acceptable? If not, please provide your preferred solution. -19.xml(940): Warning: Too long line found (L677), 1 characters longer than 72 characters: ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-up/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", -19.xml(940): Warning: Too long line found (L684), 2 characters longer than 72 characters: ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-top/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", Current: "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-up/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", [...] "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-top/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", Perhaps: "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-up/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", [...] "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-top/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", —> [JS] OK. 4) <!--[rfced] For clarity, how may this be rephrased? Specifically, please clarify "not necessarily mean". Does this mean it can go either way (results or no results)? The original is of the form "the absence of X does not necessarily mean that Y will return no results". Original: The absence in a response of a link for a specific relation does not necessarily mean that the corresponding search will return no results. Option A (using "may or may not"): In a response, the absence of a link for a specific relation may or may not mean that the corresponding search returns zero results. Option B (using "may or may not", and "cause" instead of "mean"): In a response, the absence of a link for a specific relation may or may not cause the corresponding search to return zero results. —> [JS] Would prefer to keep the original text since "does not necessarily mean" connotes that one should not assume “no results” because of “absence … of a link”. 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the "type" attribute is set as intended for sourcecode elements in the XML file. If the current list of preferred values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to suggest a new one. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. FYI, in Figure 8 (IPv4 Network Search Response) and similar, we changed sourcecode type="drawing" to type="json", as "drawing" is not a type of sourcecode - and because of usage in STD 95 (on the intake form, you wrote to follow STD 95): we see RFC 9083, Figure 32 contains a search response in sourcecode with type="json" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9083.html#figure-32). Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. —> [JS] OK. 6) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may this be rephrased? Specifically, may "for" be changed to "that of" in "the behaviour of the lookup URL is the same as for the search URL"? Regarding "is the same as for the search URL as at the time when": - The use of "as" twice in this phrase is unclear. - "at the time when" is redundant. (Suggest removing "when".) Please review whether the suggested text conveys the intended meaning. Original: When using a link object for a single-result search, a server may replace a search URL with a lookup URL, because the behaviour of the lookup URL is the same as for the search URL as at the time when the response is generated. Perhaps: When using a link object for a single-result search, a server may replace a search URL with a lookup URL, because the behaviour of the lookup URL is the same as that of the search URL at the time the response is generated. —> [JS] OK, that reads better. 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we updated "Whois" to "WHOIS" (2 instances) to match the cited RFC - [RFC3912] - as well as usage in STD 95. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. —> [JS] OK. <snip>
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
