Subject: [weirds] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:14:54 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-11: Discuss

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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-json-response/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this document is missing a discussion of the fact that while
jCard was selected as the format for entity representation because it can
flexibly accommodate the spectrum of the kinds of entities that require
representation in RDAP, the full jCard specification includes many fields
that are unrelated to the uses of the RDAP protocol and therefore not
expected to be stored or made available by servers. This is a different
point than the point made in Appendix A.1 (which should really be in
Section 14 IMO) about the use of status values, which implies that the
fields exist in the server-side database but are not shared in certain
circumstances.

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

= Section 3.2 =
I love an idiom as much as the next person, but it would be better to use
names in examples that are not culturally specific.

= Section 4 =
The reference to I-D.ietf-jcardcal-jcard should be replaced with RFC
7095, I think.

= Section 6.1 =
Following on from my DISCUSS, I know the example in this section is just
an example, but it includes all kinds of information about Joe User that
no registry should be asking for and no registrant should willingly
provide (gender? anniversary? really?!). It would be nice for the example
to reflect what reality might/should actually be like.

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:09:03 +0000

This is a good point.  Does inserting the following paragraph after the first paragraph in Section 5.1 address this?

  The entity object class uses jCard [RFC7095] to represent contact information,
  such as postal addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and names of 
  organizations and individuals. Many of the types of information that can be
  represented with jCard are unlikely to be used in RDAP, such as birthdays,
  anniversaries, and gender.

Agreed (though your section numbers are off).

Thanks.

-andy

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:24:27 -0700

>  anniversaries, and gender.

s/are unlikely to be used/have no use/

Otherwise looks good.

> Agreed (though your section numbers are off).

Sorry about that, too many document reviews going on at once …

Thanks,
Alissa