Hi Mario,

I read the latest rdap-jscontact draft and have the following comments.

1. The guidelines on experimental RFCs does not guarantee that an
Experimental will be promoted to Proposed Standard if the experiment
is successful. Even if the criteria set out in section 1.2 were met,
IETF consensus is still required to move rdap-jscontact to PS. In
other words, the text "A future update to this document may promote it
to the Standards Track" should be struck as it seems to indicate that
rdap-jscontact will go to PS if the criteria are met and documented in
an I-D.

Instead, the experiment should focus on collecting feedback to inform
a potential future promotion to PS.

2. I think the bar for success in section 1.2 is being set too high.
rdap-jscontact already has more implementation experience than most
specifications going to PS. Instead, I think the experiment should be
about measuring how many servers and clients implement rdap-jscontact,
and how many queries include a signal for rdap-jscontact. In other
words, I don't think you should set a target level. It might be that
we find 5% of queries support it and this working group could, in the
future, deem that good enough. IMHO, 1% adoption is good enough.

3. Does item 1 in section 1.2 rule out gTLD RDAP? That's how I read
it, but I am not sure that is the intent.

4. Is it worth adding the qualifier "actively maintained" to item 2 of
section 1.2? Otherwise, projects that are dead might hold back the
adoption count.

5. I think it would be interesting to add a "noJcard" extension
identifier to the experiment to see how many clients and queries
explicitly want only jscontact.

6. The use of notices in section 4.3 is not quite correct. The "title"
property is being used as an identifier, but it is suppose to be human
readable text that could be in a separate language. I think what you
want is the "type" property, which takes a registered value.

-andy

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to