Summary: Needs 4 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
[[ comments ]] [ section 2.3 ] * My current understanding is that it's not possible to request a sort by IP address in general (i.e. without regard to IP address family). Otherwise, since some IPv6 addresses (admittedly not any within the current 2000::/3 GUA space) might be numerically less then some IPv4 addresses, I think there would probably need to be some text around relative ordering between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses regardless of numerical equivalent values. But again: my reading is that sort can only be by ipV4 or ipV6 (and not just some generalized "ip" parameter), so this shouldn't be necessary. [[ nits ]] [ section 2.1 ] * s/value of sort "parameter"/value of the "sort" parameter/ perhaps? [ section 2.4 ] * I think the cursor value "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MAo=" might decode to 'offset=100,limit=50\n' (with a trailing newline). The base64 encoding without the trailing newline might be 'b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MA==', but someone should double-check me on that.
Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points (but, to be honest, I was close to put a DISCUSS about server performance impact that is not fully addressed in the security section). I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2.1 -- I find the wording a little confusing in ""totalCount": "Numeric" (OPTIONAL) ... It MUST be provided if and only if ...". While I understand the meaning, would another wording avoid the conflicting "OPTIONAL" <-> "MUST" ? I.e., the "OPTIONAL" could possibly be removed. -- Section 2.2 -- I am concerned that a server having to compute "totalCount" (even if only to return the first 10 entries) may spend a lot of time computing this number in the absence of index... The security section does not offer a definitive answer to this issue IMHO. E.g., I would prefer to allow the server to refuse to serve "totalCount" until the last page (and even). -- Section 2.3 -- Is there a reason why RFC 5952 was not used to represent the IPv6 address ? I am concerned that a server having to sort on client-side selection of properties may have a huge performance impact in the absence of relevant DB indexes.The security section does not offer a definitive answer to this issue IMHO. -- Section 2.3.1 -- Is there a reason for this unusual writing of 'ipV4' (uppercase V) ? -- Section 2.4 -- Suggestion: mention that the cursor value is opaque for the client ? == NITS == -- Section 2.2 -- Is a 'figure' element really required for a single line example ? Should the URI be "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*example.com&count=true" (also applicable to section 2.3)