Last Call Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-24
Requested 2014-10-16
Authors Andrew Newton, Scott Hollenbeck
Draft last updated 2014-10-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -15 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15-genart-lc-carpenter-2014-10-20
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 18)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2014-10-20


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2014-10-20
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-24
IESG Telechat date: 2014-10-30

Summary:   Almost ready

Major Issues:

Section 3.1.1 says:

  "The restricted
   rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are
   not mandatory."

Why not make 5952 at least a SHOULD? Personally, I would make it a MUST. As 5952 itself states,
the ambiguity of the RFC 4291 format creates many problems. 5952 in any case requires that
"all implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format",
so making conformance with 5952 a SHOULD or MUST won't break anything.

Minor issues:

Section 3.1.1 says:

  "However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in
   this context and therefore prohibited."

Agreed, but you probably also need to exclude the extended URI syntax for this [RFC6874],
since your base reference is the URI syntax [RFC3986] which is updated by 6874.
This is just for clarification, since 6874 does not change the ABNF production
for IPv6address.

"10.2.  Informative References

   [REST]     Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the
              Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet
              Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002."

The text in section 1.1 implies that this is "a doctoral dissertation". It isn't.