Subject: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:31:47 -0800

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Russ Housley for the ART ART review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/XJJLbQHKjAxsAlScJL3BKX9vMOA/ and
Carsten Bormann for providing CDDL feedback (more below).

I have a couple of non-blocking comments, but I would really appreciate an
answer.

Francesca

1. -----

FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19.

2. ----

Section 10.2

FP: This section is quite clear, but I can't not notice that CDDL
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8610) would have been a good addition
to this document. Here is a proposal

rdap-bootstrap-registry = {
      "version": tstr,
      "publication": tstr,
      ? "description": tstr,
      "services": [+ service]
}

service = [
      entry-list,
      service-uri-list
]

entry-list = [+ entry: tstr]

service-uri-list = [+ service-uri: tstr]

Note that I have marked each of the services, entry-list and service-uri-list
arrays as containing "one or more" element - if these arrays can be empty, then
"+" should be replaced by "*". Which raise the question - can any of them be
empty? What would be the meaning in that case? And also nicely shows why
defining the CDDL is always a Good Thing.