Last Call Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15
review-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15-genart-lc-carpenter-2014-10-20-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-10-24 | |
Requested | 2014-10-16 | |
Authors | Andy Newton , Scott Hollenbeck | |
I-D last updated | 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 2014-12-23) | |
Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -15
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -15 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Sarah Banks (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 15 (document currently at 18) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2014-10-20 |
review-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15-genart-lc-carpenter-2014-10-20-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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.