Subject: [weirds] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-12

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:00:34 -0500

Summary: Small changes and then ready for Last Call.

I don't think any of these issues are controversial. Addressing them 
should be quite quick, and then I'm happy to Last Call.

1 -

    This is the basic usage pattern for this protocol:

I really think you need to be clearer about bootstrap and base URLs in 
this section. You should also use an example that's closer to the 
examples in rdap-query. I suggest the following replacement text for 1 & 2:

    1.  A client determines an appropriate server to query along with
        the appropriate base URL to use in such queries.
        [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap] describes one method to determine the
        server and the base URL. See Appendix C for more information.

    2.  A client issues an HTTP (or HTTPS) query using GET [RFC7231].  As
        an example, a query for the network registration 192.0.2.0 might
        be

           http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0

        [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] details the various queries used in
        RDAP.

Strike the last sentence of item 3. Of course non-standard things can be 
used. They're not standard. No need to mention them here. Mentioning 
them in the design criteria in section 3 is more than sufficient. (I'm 
not a big fan of it appearing there either, but it's acceptable as a 
design criteria.)

4.1 - Move the first sentence after the second and third, and make the 
second and third active voice:

    Clients use the GET method to retrieve a response body and use the
    HEAD method to determine existence of data on the server. Clients
    SHOULD use either the HTTP GET or HEAD methods (see [RFC7231]).

I think it flows much better this way.

5 -

    at a minimum clients SHOULD understand the response codes
    described in this section as they will be in common use by servers.

The SHOULD in there seems silly. I think what you really mean is:

    this section defines the minimal set of response codes in common use
    by servers that a client will need to understand.

5.5 -

    Clients that
    do not honor the Retry-After header may stricter limits placed upon
    them.

Do you mean, "Servers may place stricter limits upon clients that do not 
honor the Retry-After header"? That's probably a clearer way to say it.

9.2 -

    The mechanism for including a language identifier in a response will
    be defined in subsequent documents describing specific response
    formats.

Instead, I think it's better to say:

    [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] provides such a mechanism.

Appendix A/B -

I think you should include "/rdap" in the query examples, the same way 
you have rdap-query examples.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:58:14 +0000

Pete,

Thanks for the review and comments. I agree with them all and will rev the
document as soon as possible.

-andy

On 10/7/14, 1:00 AM, "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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