Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-14
review-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-14-secdir-lc-housley-2025-02-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2025-02-17
Requested 2025-02-03
Authors Tom Harrison , Jasdip Singh
I-D last updated 2025-02-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Russ Housley (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -14 by John R. Levine (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/wInptxqAwokemQe-TXbV3nssHZI
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-02-04
review-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-14-secdir-lc-housley-2025-02-04-00
I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area
Directors.  Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-14
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2025-02-05
IETF LC End Date: 2025-02-17
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready


Major Concerns:  None.


Minor Concerns:

Section 1: The text talks about "RIR Whois services".  Is there a reference
for this?  If not, would a reference to RFC 3912 be appropriate?

Section 3.4:  The document says:

~~~
   This is acceptable, because this behaviour:

      does not conflict with the current description of the link
      relation; and

      is not generally applicable, but instead limited to the context of
      RDAP INR objects only.
~~~

I have two comments.  First, it is unclear to me what "This" is referencing.
Second, the formatting is a bit confusing.  Maybe bullets would resolve this
concern.


Nits:

Section 6: Bullets in the first paragraph would be helpful.