> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:10 PM
> To: [email protected]; General Area
> Review Team
> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2014-10-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-24
> IESG Telechat date: 2014-10-30
>
> Summary: Almost ready
> --------
>
> Major Issues:
> -------------
>
> Section 3.1.1 says:
>
> "The restricted
> rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952]
> are
> not mandatory."
>
> Why not make 5952 at least a SHOULD? Personally, I would make it a
> MUST. As 5952 itself states,
> the ambiguity of the RFC 4291 format creates many problems. 5952 in any
> case requires that
> "all implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate
> RFC 4291 format",
> so making conformance with 5952 a SHOULD or MUST won't break anything.
>
> Minor issues:
> -------------
>
> Section 3.1.1 says:
>
> "However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in
> this context and therefore prohibited."
>
> Agreed, but you probably also need to exclude the extended URI syntax
> for this [RFC6874],
> since your base reference is the URI syntax [RFC3986] which is updated
> by 6874.
> This is just for clarification, since 6874 does not change the ABNF
> production
> for IPv6address.
Thanks for the feedback, Brian. I've asked Andy to review the comments above
since they refer to objects that are primarily used by address registries.
> "10.2. Informative References
>
> [REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the
> Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet
> Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002."
>
> The text in section 1.1 implies that this is "a doctoral dissertation".
> It isn't.
Thanks for catching that. I can change the reference to this (used in RFC 7252):
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California, Irvine, 2000,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
