Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!--[rfced] search response vs. response code vs. response The original uses various terms ("search response" and "response code" and "response") after an HTTP status code. Would you like to update "search response" to "response code" to match 2 instances in this document or "status code" to match the cited document (RFC 9110) or otherwise? For example: Original: ... with a HTTP 404 (Not Found) [RFC9110] search response. Option A: ... with an HTTP 404 (Not Found) [RFC9110] response code. Option B: ... with an HTTP 404 (Not Found) [RFC9110] status code. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] In Figure 5, two lines are longer than the line limit. To resolve this, is moving the two lines to the left as shown below acceptable? If not, please provide your preferred solution. -19.xml(940): Warning: Too long line found (L677), 1 characters longer than 72 characters: ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-up/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", -19.xml(940): Warning: Too long line found (L684), 2 characters longer than 72 characters: ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-top/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", Current: "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-up/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", [...] "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-top/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", Perhaps: "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-up/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", [...] "href": ".../rdap/ips/rirSearch1/rdap-top/2001:db8:a::/48?status=active", --> 4) <!--[rfced] For clarity, how may this be rephrased? Specifically, please clarify "not necessarily mean". Does this mean it can go either way (results or no results)? The original is of the form "the absence of X does not necessarily mean that Y will return no results". Original: The absence in a response of a link for a specific relation does not necessarily mean that the corresponding search will return no results. Option A (using "may or may not"): In a response, the absence of a link for a specific relation may or may not mean that the corresponding search returns zero results. Option B (using "may or may not", and "cause" instead of "mean"): In a response, the absence of a link for a specific relation may or may not cause the corresponding search to return zero results. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the "type" attribute is set as intended for sourcecode elements in the XML file. If the current list of preferred values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to suggest a new one. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. FYI, in Figure 8 (IPv4 Network Search Response) and similar, we changed sourcecode type="drawing" to type="json", as "drawing" is not a type of sourcecode - and because of usage in STD 95 (on the intake form, you wrote to follow STD 95): we see RFC 9083, Figure 32 contains a search response in sourcecode with type="json" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9083.html#figure-32). Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. --> 6) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may this be rephrased? Specifically, may "for" be changed to "that of" in "the behaviour of the lookup URL is the same as for the search URL"? Regarding "is the same as for the search URL as at the time when": - The use of "as" twice in this phrase is unclear. - "at the time when" is redundant. (Suggest removing "when".) Please review whether the suggested text conveys the intended meaning. Original: When using a link object for a single-result search, a server may replace a search URL with a lookup URL, because the behaviour of the lookup URL is the same as for the search URL as at the time when the response is generated. Perhaps: When using a link object for a single-result search, a server may replace a search URL with a lookup URL, because the behaviour of the lookup URL is the same as that of the search URL at the time the response is generated. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we updated "Whois" to "WHOIS" (2 instances) to match the cited RFC - [RFC3912] - as well as usage in STD 95. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: whitespace --> Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Dec 22, 2025, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/12/22 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * [email protected] (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9910-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9910 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9910 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-19) Title : Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Search Author(s) : T. Harrison, J. Singh WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
