Subject: Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:48:01 +0000

From:  <Hollenbeck>, Scott <[email-masked]>
Date:  Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 8:14
To:  Sarah Banks <[email-masked]>, "<[email-masked]>"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Cc:  "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [weirds] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query

> Thanks for the review comments, Sarah. More below...
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Sarah Banks [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>  Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:43 PM
>>  To: <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
>>  Subject: OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
>>  
>> 
>> Overall, I found the document very easy to read through, walking
>>  through the problem it's trying to solve, addressing each add section
>>  by section, with discussion points for each, and examples for each,
>>  too. One minor (personal) nit, is the requirement that WHOIS servers
>>  that don't or can't respond to a request SHOULD return a 501 error
>>  (RFC7231). In trying to provide some structure, it'd be nice to know
>>  explicitly that the server has/had an issue responding to the request.
>>  If the server chooses not to return a 501 in the event of an error,
>>  then what?
> 
> Would anyone in the WG object to this being a MUST? That would address the
> ambiguity.

Assuming “WHOIS server" -> “RDAP server" in the above, yes, a MUST.