Responses inline... On 18/10/2014 12:15 am, "Edward Lewis" <edward.lewis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Comment 1 >--------- > >Section 1. > >## The registration data expected to be presented by this service is >## Internet resource registration data - registration of domain names >## and Internet number resources. These data is typically provided by > >Nit: ''These data is'': >Perhaps - remove the ?¹The'' to start the paragraph and then ''Such data >are'' >for the Nit. (Treat ?¹data'' consistently as singular or plural.) Good catch. I suspect "These data is" was meant to be "This data is", using "data" as a collective noun. I agree with removing 'The', but personally prefer "This data is". >Comment 2 >--------- > >Section 3. > >Nit: ''meant to return only one path of execution'' - perhaps ''follow one >path''? How would s/return/require/ work for you? The notion is that a protocol matching this design intent would not lead to clients having branching or tree searching operations, so for me "follow one path" describes a client behaviour more than a protocol expectation. >Comment 3 >--------- > > >Section 5.6. > > >Nit: ''As the use of RDAP is for public resources'' is a judgement call. >Suggest >rewording as ''When RDAP is for public resources, a value of ?*¹. . .'' I agree with the premise of this nit. The entire sentence then reads: When RDAP is for public resources, a value of "*" is suitable for most cases. How about something a little less tortuous: A value of "*" is suitable when RDAP is used for public resources. >Comment 5 >--------- > >Section 7. > >Nit: ''It does require the RDAP clients MUST support HTTPS.'' >Nit: ''This document made'' should be ''This document makes'' => "It does require that RDAP clients MUST support HTTPS." And agree on made => makes. >Comment 7 > >--------- > > >Appendix B > >Nit: ''this is unlikely to have any known side effects'' - suggest ''this >will be[/ought to be] compatible with the RDAP definition.'' How about we be more assertive: "... this is compatible with the RDAP definition." Thanks for looking over the doc closely! -- bje
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>