Subject: [weirds] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-14: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:40:38 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-14: 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-using-http/

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

-- Section 1 --

   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

A small point, but, strictly speaking, that is not a query: it's a query
URL.  The query is the full HTTP GET protocol.  So either put in the HTTP
query, or make it "As an example, a query URL for...".  (The rdap-query
document actually is careful to call them URLs every time.)

Another small point: in bullet 4 you expand the abbreviation "URL". 
Good, but you've used "URL" twice, earlier in the document.  You should
expand it the first time it's used.

-- Section 2 --
Yet another small point: I see that someone asked you to expand "SSAC". 
Cool, but that now screams out for noting that it's a committee of ICANN
(which then raises the question of whether ICANN should be expanded). 
I'm going to duck and cover now, and just let you do what you think best
here.

-- Section 3 --

   First, each query is meant to require only one path of execution to
   obtain an answer.  A response may contain an answer, no answer, or a
   redirect, and clients are not expected to fork multiple paths of
   execution to satisfy a query.

Do clients "satisfy" queries?  I thought that clients make them, and
servers satisfy them.

-- Section 5.2 --

   For example, if the client sends

      http://serv1.example.com/weirds/domain/example.com

Again: strictly speaking, the client doesn't "send" that.  You could say,
"if the client uses".

-- Section 5.3 --

   Clients
   MAY retry the query based on the respective response code.

What you probably want to say here is

NEW
   A client
   MAY retry the query if that is appropriate for the
   respective response code.
END

-- Section 9.1 --
Thank you!  It's always been my contention that IRIs are not part of wire
protocol, and should never be sent around as IRIs.