Thanks so much for the recent editorial work on this document: Version -12
is easy to read and clear, and I’m happy to sent it to last call. I have
some review comments below, but they’re all minor and can be handled as
part of the last call comments. I will request last call on this right
after I send this note.
— Section 1 —
Several leading API providers [LINKEDIN] [FACEBOOK] [GOOGLE]
implement partial response features by providing an optional query
parameter through which clients identify the fields they wish to
receive. Support for partial responses is also considered a leading
principle by many best practice guidelines in REST API implementation
[REST-API1] [REST-API2] in order to improve performance, save on
bandwidth and possibly accelerate the overall interaction. In other
contexts, for example in digital libraries and bibliographic
catalogues, servers can respond according to different element sets
(i.e. "brief" to obtain a short response and "full" to obtain the
complete response).
Maybe it’s just me, but I find that paragraph unnecessary. I suggest
simply removing it (and the references it cites) as extraneous. This is a
suggestion, not a requirement, so if the working group has a reason to keep
the paragraph, that’s OK. I just think it doesn’t add anything useful to
the document beyond what’s in the other paragraphs here.
— Section 1.1 —
Please use the exact boilerplate from RFC 8174.
— Section 4 —
o "id": the server provides only the key field, respectively:
"handle" for entities, "ldhName" for domains and nameservers.
Nit: Please remove “, respectively”, as it’s misused here. Correct use
(though I don’t suggest this change) woud be, ‘the server provides only the
key field: “handle” or “ldhName” for entities or domains and nameservers,
respectively.’
RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to include
This is correct and fine as written, but I think it reads better in active
voice as, “RDAP providers SHOULD include”.
Fields included in the "brief" and "full" field sets MUST be returned
according to the user's access and authorization levels.
What is the focus of this sentence? Is it about what MUST be returned? Or
that authorization levels MUST be applied? I think it’s the latter, but
it’s not clear from the wording. If I’m right, it might be better worded
this way (adjust as appropriate to give the emphasis you really intend):
NEW
Fields included in the "brief" and "full" field set responses MUST
take into account the user's access and authorization levels.
END
— Section 6 —
Please make the contact “IETF”, rather than “IESG”.
—
Barry
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
