Subject: [weirds] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:47:42 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-11: 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 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/

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

- I support Alissa's discuss point that jCard is too rich a
syntax and the specific jCard members intended to be used here
ought be specified and the spec should say to not use others.
The example on p18, with gender, dob, and other privacy
sensitive fields should be adjusted to not include such.

- I think it would have been a fine thing had the WG decided to
do a more comprehensive privacy analysis of RDAP but I don't
see that in this document set at least. I do like Kathleen's
suggested text better than that currently in the privacy
considerations section though.

- Figure numbers are used inconsisently, some examples have
them and, for no apparent reason, some don't. That needs
fixing. There's also a lack of clarity about the specification
style here - you need to be clearer as to what is just and
example and what is not.

- p21, the list following the example contains items that were
not in the example - this is unclear writing. Are you saying
that the list is normative or not? If so, you need to say so.
If not, why go beyond the example? The same point applies to
the lots of other examples that follow.

- 10.2.X: there's a lot of stuff here that wasn't described. I
wouldn't be surprised if that causes interop problems.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:28:51 +0000

From:  Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date:  Thursday, October 30, 2014 at 9:47
To:  The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc:  "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject:  [weirds] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-11: (with COMMENT)

>considerations section though.

I objected to that in another response.  There will be many use cases for
RDAP in many different privacy environments.  It’s best that the protocol
is able to accommodate the various environments in an interoperable way
and *not*, as WhoIs does by default, impose one particular model.

The data being held in registration databases is largely under the
oversight of a few and significantly separate organizations.  Privacy is a
topic/issue broadly considered.  (I can’t speak for all organizations and
environments, but I have worked in various segments of internet
registration operations and have come across this issue in all where I’ve
worked.)

>_______________________________________________
>weirds mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds