I did a review of the latest version of the draft
(draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-10), and below is my feedback:
1. Abstract
* It states, “This document describes RDAP query extensions”.
Shouldn’t it be “this document describes an RDAP query extension” in the
singular form?
2. Introduction
* It is not clear what adopted ad hoc strategies effectively mitigate
the impact of reverse searches. Additionally, a standard search is much less
powerful than implementing a reverse search, so I don’t view them as equivalent
from a server processing perspective. Some clarity of how a standard search is
equivalent to a reverse search would be helpful or I would remove the statement.
* How is the domain-entity relationship treated with a special focus on
its privacy implications? Clarification would be helpful.
3. RDAP Path Segment Specification
* Is it defining OPTIONAL extensions or an OPTIONAL extension? I
believe the specification is defining a single RDAP extension, so the singular
form would be better.
* The searchable-resource-type is limited to only resource types defined
in RFC 9082. Shouldn’t it also support new resource types defined by future
RDAP extensions? My recommendation is to have it read “it MUST be one of the
resource types for searched defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9082] or a resource
type extension, …”.
* The related-resource-type is limited to only resource types defined in
RFC 9082. Shouldn’t it also support new resource types defined by future RDAP
extensions? My recommendation is to have it read “it MUST be one of the
resource types for lookup defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9082] or a resource
type extension…”.
4. RDAP Conformance
* Based on the definition of a single value, the specification is
defining a single RDAP extension and not multiple RDAP extensions as indicated
in the Abstract and Introduction.
--
JG
[cid:image001.png@01D85946.08164690]
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Antoin Verschuren
<ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:44 AM
To: regext <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search
WGLC for this document should have ended last week.
But since there is still a good discussion going on between the Document
Shepherd and the authors, the chairs have decided to extend this WGLC for
another week till Monday May 2nd.
Since we only had 2 valid support messages (not being the authors or shepherd)
we would like to ask for more support from the WG as well. 2 is very little to
declare consensus. Could others please review as soon as Mario has published a
new version with the comments from Scott and Tom included?
Op 11 apr. 2022, om 15:50 heeft Antoin Verschuren
<ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>> het
volgende geschreven:
Reminder,
1 more week remaining for this WGLC.
In addition to the authors, we received 3 responses so far.
Regards,
Jim and Antoin
Op 4 apr. 2022, om 15:18 heeft Antoin Verschuren
<ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>> het
volgende geschreven:
Dear Working Group,
The authors of the following working group document have indicated that it is
believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as a standards
track document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ua3m1ygiPX3451lX_xaT9Z-dfjlDPcKJyp8avIFHXnHWndX3bvBPwhtbQU3yIZXz19hRC-18gI3rg7jzG1i7rI75UL5jo68iKqKYLCg2_-lG3zN36bOo2h-UDJuSccsr1TqPJzr-sh4pSgnm5JHfFINaH9HK5TbDl00Ye37nMZ6ecLZQrfipasSmiQTDKvrTDbd1MMXTyIRk2Q3nbS8JPcsGYYX3xs62rg93ONBCUdy48YH1INSVQUwIV2i3d8PO/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search%2F>
This WG last call will end at close of business, Monday, 18 April 2022.
Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” is
sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by replying to
this message on the list.
The document shepherd for this document is Tom Harrison.
Regards,
Jim and Antoin
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
