Murray, Thanks for the review. My feedback is included embedded below. We can post draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14 once you agree with the needed updates.
Thanks, -- JG [cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40] 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 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:38 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Cc: "a...@hxr.us" <a...@hxr.us>, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org>, "regext-cha...@ietf.org" <regext-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-13 AD evaluation: Thanks, Andy, for a good shepherd writeup. It would be helpful, even if it seems redundant or obvious, to include an answer to the question about why Proposed Standard is the right status for this document. The first paragraph of Section 3 is a bit confusing; it says you MUST NOT use any placeholder text as a replacement for a redacted value, and then I read the next sentence to suggest that there might actually be valid replacement placeholder text although it might not conform to the expected syntax. But on a second read, I think you're telling me that the reason it's MUST NOT is because there could be a syntax mismatch which could upset parsers. If that's correct, I suggest combining the sentences with "because" or "since". JG – You are correct, the format mismatch is one reason for the MUST NOT. The sentences can be combined to read: “The use of placeholder text for the values of the RDAP fields, such as the placeholder text "XXXX", MUST NOT be used for redaction, since the placeholder text value may not match the format requirements of each of the RDAP fields and provides an inconsistent and unreliable redaction signal.” In Section 3.2, why are these two SHOULDs not MUSTs? What's the choice being offered here, and what guidance should we provide? Same question for the one in Section 3.3. JG – I don’t see an issue with changing the SHOULDs in Section 3.2 to MUSTs, since I don’t see a good alternative approach to what is defined in the draft. Doesn't the method of Section 3.4 directly conflict with the MUST NOT in Section 3 (referenced above)? JG – No, since the replace value is not pre-defined placeholder text that meant to signal redaction, such as the use of the placeholder value “REDACTED”. The replacement value provides a proxy to the real value for privacy reasons. Technically, it’s not redacted but the redaction extension is used to signal that the real value has been replaced for use in visualization or processing by the client. Also in Section 3.4, s/alternate/alternative/ JG – Thanks, that will be addressed. In Section 4.2, for "prePath" and "postPath", this is a JSON path expression, not a JSON expression, correct? JG – Yes, you are correct, it is referred to as a JSON path expression with the “pathLang”. We can replace the references of “JSON expression” with “JSON path expression”. In Section 6.2, I suggest being precise: You're talking about the "RDAP JSON Values" registry. JG – Yes, it is represented as the “RDAP JSON Values” registry in IANA (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml), but Section 10.2 of RFC 9083 is titled “JSON Values Registry”. We can change the reference to “RDAP JSON Values Registry” instead of “JSON Values Registry” if that is better. Thanks for including Section 7. -MSK, ART AD On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:24 AM James Galvin via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: James Galvin has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-13 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the REGEXT working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/18pLSwXz0cjG48M2Qn_T8yCXm83ZXpEU2_mVsTBKnmTjKdryD3L2WvB2edI-62enmTMM6IBkojtaBFnrDGNDF3Iffplhz2vZiJTYyIx8IwNi022-qM4p11O0Y_6xyEORphbIhnyOLkaLVbSj8mVl8H7P34at4L9tAYf_39EtUQECH25XTISFctIuMClGcPqmWXd6ZGbI2dooHOg_lN8vLUh0yKa1wSJhaSpQ97gKLHnZJ9rDQl6HtxG-JHpjvaCip5B4C6-MUqNpVzCuhmbj1HHQ-3BtuynGpUyywWzf6KW1n31kaeDd_onKxTDC4RvpN/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted%2F>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
