Hi James,
thanks a lot for your feeedback.
Please find my responses inline.
Il 26/04/2022 14:17, Gould, James ha scritto:
I did a review of the latest version of the draft
(draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-10), and below is my feedback:
1. Abstract
1. It states, “This document describes RDAP query extensions”.
Shouldn’t it be “this document describes an RDAP query
extension” in the singular form?
[ML] Since the new version introduces a new path to obtain information
about the supported reverse searches and new response providing that
information, I'll change the sentence as in the following:
".... this document describes RDAP query and response extensions ... "
2. Introduction
1. It is not clear what adopted ad hoc strategies effectively
mitigate the impact of reverse searches. Additionally, a
standard search is much less powerful than implementing a
reverse search, so I don’t view them as equivalent from a
server processing perspective. Some clarity of how a standard
search is equivalent to a reverse search would be helpful or I
would remove the statement.
[ML] I changed that paragraph in the new version as in the following:
The other objection to the implementation of a reverse search capability
has been connected with its impact on server processing.
However, the core RDAP specifications already define search queries,
with similar processing requirements, so the distinction on
which this object is based is not clear.
Does it look fine to you? Should I explicitly refer to searching domains
for nsLdhName or nsIp when talikng about "search queries, with similar
processing requirements" ?
2.
1. How is the domain-entity relationship treated with a special
focus on its privacy implications? Clarification would be
helpful.
[ML] Would it sound better the following sentence ?
The reverse search based on the domain-entity relationship is treated as
a particular case, with a special focus on privacy implications of
querying for sensitive information.
3. RDAP Path Segment Specification
1. Is it defining OPTIONAL extensions or an OPTIONAL extension?
I believe the specification is defining a single RDAP
extension, so the singular form would be better.
[ML] Removed that sentence from the new version.
3.
1. The searchable-resource-type is limited to only resource types
defined in RFC 9082. Shouldn’t it also support new resource
types defined by future RDAP extensions? My recommendation is
to have it read “it MUST be one of the resource types for
searched defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9082] or a resource
type extension, …”.
[ML] Agreed.
3.
1. The related-resource-type is limited to only resource types
defined in RFC 9082. Shouldn’t it also support new resource
types defined by future RDAP extensions? My recommendation is
to have it read “it MUST be one of the resource types for
lookup defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9082] or a resource type
extension…”.
[ML] Agreed.
4. RDAP Conformance
1. Based on the definition of a single value, the specification
is defining a single RDAP extension and not multiple RDAP
extensions as indicated in the Abstract and Introduction.
[ML] Complying to rdapConformance tag "reverse_search_0" means
implementing, at a least, one reverse search by setting a pair
<searchable-resource-type, related-resource-type> in the generic query
model and, optionally, support the reverse search metadata request and
response.
Best,
Mario
--
JG
*James Gould
*Fellow Engineer
[email protected]
<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
*From: *regext <[email protected]> on behalf of Antoin
Verschuren <[email protected]>
*Date: *Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:44 AM
*To: *regext <[email protected]>
*Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search
WGLC for this document should have ended last week.
But since there is still a good discussion going on between the
Document Shepherd and the authors, the chairs have decided to extend
this WGLC for another week till Monday May 2nd.
Since we only had 2 valid support messages (not being the authors or
shepherd) we would like to ask for more support from the WG as well. 2
is very little to declare consensus. Could others please review as
soon as Mario has published a new version with the comments from Scott
and Tom included?
Op 11 apr. 2022, om 15:50 heeft Antoin Verschuren
<[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
Reminder,
1 more week remaining for this WGLC.
In addition to the authors, we received 3 responses so far.
Regards,
Jim and Antoin
Op 4 apr. 2022, om 15:18 heeft Antoin Verschuren
<[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
Dear Working Group,
The authors of the following working group document have
indicated that it is believed to be ready for submission to
the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ua3m1ygiPX3451lX_xaT9Z-dfjlDPcKJyp8avIFHXnHWndX3bvBPwhtbQU3yIZXz19hRC-18gI3rg7jzG1i7rI75UL5jo68iKqKYLCg2_-lG3zN36bOo2h-UDJuSccsr1TqPJzr-sh4pSgnm5JHfFINaH9HK5TbDl00Ye37nMZ6ecLZQrfipasSmiQTDKvrTDbd1MMXTyIRk2Q3nbS8JPcsGYYX3xs62rg93ONBCUdy48YH1INSVQUwIV2i3d8PO/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search%2F>
This WG last call will end at close of business, Monday, 18
April 2022.
Please review this document and indicate your support (a
simple “+1” is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of
this document by replying to this message on the list.
The document shepherd for this document is Tom Harrison.
Regards,
Jim and Antoin
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
