Hi Barry,
thanks a lot for your review and feedback. I provide answers to your
feedback below.
Il 24/07/2020 20:16, Barry Leiba ha scritto:
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.
[ML] OK.
I remove the paragraph and update the first paragraph in Appendix A
accordingly:
OLD
Looking at the implementation experiences described in Section 1, two
approaches to the implementation of partial response are observed:
NEW
Looking at the implementation experiences of partial response, two
approaches are observed:
— Section 1.1 —
Please use the exact boilerplate from RFC 8174.
[ML] OK
— 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.’
[ML] OK
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”.
[ML] OK
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
[ML] Sounds better.
— Section 6 —
Please make the contact “IETF”, rather than “IESG”.
[ML] OK
Best,
Mario
—
Barry
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
