Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors for working on the document, and to Gavin Brown for shepherding the document through. Section 2.3, paragraph 1 > This document defines a new extension identifier, "geofeed1", for use > by servers that host geofeed URLs for their IP network objects and > include geofeed URL link objects in their responses to clients in > accordance with Section 2.2. A server that uses this extension > identifier MUST include it in the "rdapConformance" array for any > lookup or search response containing an IP network object, as well as > in the help response. Here is an elided example for this inclusion: I wanted to thank Dale Worley for his GENART review and agree with his observation about this section. In particular, the updated statement that says "is able to return to the client" does indeed sound too vague. Can this statement be made more explicit with some 2119 keywords? Note, I am reviewing -09 of the document, and if the following comment has been addressed, feel free to ignore it. This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "NOT RECOMMENDED", "REQUIRED", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD NOT", "SHOULD", "SHALL NOT", "OPTIONAL", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", and "MAY", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.) The IANA review of this document has not concluded yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. These URLs in the document did not return content: * https://rdap.db.ripe.net _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
