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

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:53:43 -0700

Stephen Farrell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- As I said on the sec draft, I see no reason why RDAP could
not only be defined for use with https URIs. 

- 5.5 seems to conflict a bit with one of the notices defined
in the json-response draft where you say to do the same thing
in the payload. I don't think it's a big problem but could be
better to say which to use when.

- I'm also not sure the CORS thing is quite right if cookies
might get sent to the wrong places.