Last Call Review of draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-24
Requested 2014-10-16
Authors Steve Sheng, Linlin Zhou, Ning Kong, Sean Shen, Arturo Servin
Draft last updated 2014-10-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell
State Completed
Review review-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-05-genart-lc-campbell-2014-10-21
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2014-10-21


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2014-10-20
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-24

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. However, there are quite a number of editorial issues that probably should be considered first.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

-- section 4.5:

It may be worth mentioning that the data included instances where the same label was used for different objects by different registries.

-- 5.5, first bullet:

Can you elaborate on why "nic.ccTLD" may not have been a good choice? Does this limitation impact the value of the analysis?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- General: This draft needs another round of proofreading. The RFC editor could handle most of these, but it would be good to save them the effort. (Not to mention that every change made during the RFC editor stage has a slight potential to affect meaning.)

-- Abstract, 2nd sentence: "... and result of existing WHOIS information."

Do you mean results of the _analysis_ of existing WHOIS information?

-- section 1, first sentence

Please expand RIRs and DNRs on first mention in the body. (I know you did so in the abstract, but they should be re-expanded in the body.)

-- section 1, 2nd bullet:

Missing conjunction?

-- section 1, 6th paragraph:

Can you include a citation for RDAP?

-- section 1, 7th paragraph: 

Paragraph uses presence tense. I suggest if you are describing observations made in the past, it should use past tense. 

"In number space..."

Missing article.

"Autonomous Systen Number (ASNs)"

Singular term, but plural abbreviation

"In domain name space..."

Missing article

" A common understanding of all these data formats is critical."

Critical for what purpose?

-- section 1, last paragraph: "Objects are classified" and "categories are viewed"

Passive voice obscures the meaning. I'm not sure if you mean "objects are classified" and "categories are viewed" by your analysis, by standards, or by the registries.

-- section 3, general:

Inconsistent paragraph construction for the process steps. Some steps are imperative, others are descriptive.

-- section 3, first list, list entry  (1)

All the sentences but the last seem to belong with the introduction to the process. That is, they are not part of the actual process.

-- section 3, 2nd list, entry (1)

s/"Responses of 106 ccTLDs"/"Responses for 106 ccTLDs"

entry (2)

should "... registries that have ... responses" be "registries that send ... responses"?

entry (3): "... collected by program...

Missing article.

entry (4): "self-designed data elements"

Does "self-designed" mean the same as "privately specified"?  (as used later in the conclusions.)

-- section 4, tables:

I suggest you number the tables, and refer to them by number. Things like "the following table" can cause confusion if some  rendering format (or future revision) changes the relative positions.. 

-- section 4.3, 2nd paragraph: "... some table unites ..."

Wrong word?  (Unites)

"... orderly placed ...'

Does this mean "... placed in order..."

"Every hyphen ... "

Every hyphen? This conflicts with example, where in abuse-mailbox, only one of the hyphens indicated a continuation. (Also, using a continuation signal that duplicates characters that actually appear in the data is confusing. It's probably not worth fixing that at this stage, though.)

-- section 4.3, table:

What do slashes and parentheses mean in the data? Are they literally in the data, or do they mean something else?

-- section 5.1 "four ccTLDs and..."

Capitalization error.

-- 5.2.2 : "In domain name space..."

Missing article.

-- 5.2.4, first paragraph after table: "... have 'Sponsoring Registrar' data element ..."

Missing article.

-- 5.4.2, last paragraph"

s/" just parts of all the objects " / " just some of all the objects "