Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse Search
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-26

Thanks for addressing my discuss!

Thank you to Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for address my DISCUSS feedback.

I support Lars Eggert's DISCUSS position.

== 

** Section 1.
   The first objection concerns the potential risks of privacy
   violation.

Where are these privacy concerns summarized?  Could a reference be provided?

Supporting Lars's and John's Discuss.

Thank you for the work put into this document. 

While my review did not identity any issues, I am supporting Lars' & John's DISCUSS points.

Special thanks to Tom Harrison for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. 

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Supporting John's discuss on this one

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Susan Hares for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Pb3ulFRTmqoQ5FOhkYGLHrZ1zVE).

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `natively`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`,
   `ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original`

## Nits

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.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-17`, but `-19` is the latest
available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 12.2.3.1, paragraph 5
```
| entity search based on the full name (a.k.a | | | formatted name) of an as
                                        ^^^^^
```
The abbreviation/initialism is missing a period after the last letter.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

Updated position - Thanks for addressing my discuss issue.