Hi Lars,
thanks a lot for your review.
Please find my comments inline.
Il 22/08/2023 12:48, Lars Eggert via Datatracker ha scritto:
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24
CC @larseggert
Thanks to Susan Hares for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Pb3ulFRTmqoQ5FOhkYGLHrZ1zVE).
## Discuss
(For discussion in the IESG, i.e., no action required from the
authors.) This is likely me not understanding something, but I'd
appreciate if someone could explain where this document fits into the
current REGEXT charter scope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
## Comments
### Inclusive language
Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:
* Term `natively`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`,
`ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original`
[ML] Sorry I was not aware of it. Replaced "natively supported" with
"built-in" ;-)
## Nits
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.
### Outdated references
Document references `draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-17`, but `-19` is the latest
available revision.
[ML] The document makes use of the citation
https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base.xml
that properly shows '-19' as the last revision of jsonpath-base.
Version '-17' is reported instead when the document is rendered.
Could it be a bug of the rendering tool ?
### Grammar/style
#### Section 12.2.3.1, paragraph 5
```
| entity search based on the full name (a.k.a | | | formatted name) of an as
^^^^^
```
The abbreviation/initialism is missing a period after the last letter.
[ML] Good catch. Fixed.
Best,
Mario
## Notes
This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].
[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
