Hi David,
thanks a lot for your review and feedback. I provide my answer to your
feedback below:
Il 25/07/2020 00:47, David Schinazi via Datatracker ha scritto:
Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-12
Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review Date: 2020-07-24
IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-14
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: Document is clear, well-written, and short. Thank you!
Major issues: None
Minor issues: After reading the document, I was somewhat
confused as to the definition of fieldSet query parameter.
I think adding a few sentences to Section 2 explaining that
a field set is a string that the server generates which maps
to a set of fields only known to the server would help.
[ML] It seems to me that both the concepts are already conveyed in the
document. Maybe they are not adequately clarified.
The sentence "... whose value is a string identifying a server-defined
set of supported fields.." means that a field set name and the related
list of fields are defined by the server.
With regards to the assumption that a field set is known only by the
server, this is not generally true.
Both the field set names and the related list of fields might (hopefully
should) be shared by as many servers as possible to facilitate
interoperability as described in section 4.
Moreover, the field sets together with other server features are
expected to be described in out-of-band documents like the RDAP profile.
Finally, as described in section 2.1, the subsetting_metadata element
could provide an in-band information about the supported field sets that
is more reactive to server updates than out-of-band contents.
Do you think that the concepts above should be furtherly clarified ?
Additionally, specifying that the string can't be empty and
which characters are allowed might help avoid interop
issues down the road.
Nits/editorial comments: None
[ML] Agreed.
But rather than updating section 2, I think that it would be better to
change the section 5 as in the following:
OLD
Each request including an unsupported field set SHOULD produce an
HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code.
NEW
Each request including either an empty or an unsupported "fieldSet" value
SHOULD produce an
HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code.
Is it okay with you?
Best,
Mario
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
reg...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
