Sounds good, Mario. I’ll be glad to clear when you’ve published version 25 with the update.
Thanks, —John > On Aug 24, 2023, at 6:29 AM, Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote: > > Hi John, > > thanks a lot for your review. > > Please find my comments below. > > Il 22/08/2023 22:55, John Scudder via Datatracker ha scritto: >> John Scudder 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9MYG1nsCA$ >> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9Pi5xWSPg$ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thanks for this document. I have one concern, which should be easy to >> address. >> >> It looks as though draft-ietf-jsonpath-base should be a Normative reference. >> In >> fact, this is explicitly mentioned in the shepherd writeup (thank you!): >> >> > 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? >> See >> the [IESG > Statement on Normative and Informative >> References][16]. >> >> JSON Paths are depended on normatively in the document, but the >> reference for them is to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base, which is why that >> reference is informative. (This is in keeping with e.g. RFC 8977, >> though in that case the reference was to the original description of >> the JSON Path behaviour at >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9O9YhWGcA$ >> .) >> >> However, that rationale doesn't make sense to me. If a normative reference >> is a >> downref, "just stick it in the informative references section instead" is not >> the appropriate fix, the usual thing is to keep it in the normative >> references >> and then the RFC Editor deals with the mismatch by holding off on publication >> of the dependent document, until the dependency is published (a so-called >> "cluster"). In this case, draft-ietf-jsonpath-base is on the same IESG >> agenda >> as draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search is, so there isn't even much reason >> to >> worry that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search will be stalled for long if >> at >> all, the two will likely move together. >> >> The easiest way to resolve this DISCUSS would be to change the reference to >> Normative. If for some reason that's considered unacceptable, I'd appreciate >> a >> discussion explaining why, and why "make it an informative reference" should >> be >> acceptable. >> >> > [ML] I fully agree with you. > > That reference is informative because I literally interpreted Note 4 but > it should be normative. > > I'll move it to the Normative References. > > > Best, > > Mario > >> >> > -- > 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: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CvAz_1jKGbytnq2D41T6hWGLZ87_K_pIzfhJMEd5aPT5HKx04Ph9PCwDaNKfVQEFbwCu2r_-gduYVCnKS9MArtTzAA$ > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
