Last Call Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-24
Requested 2014-10-16
Authors Scott Hollenbeck, Ning Kong
Draft last updated 2014-10-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-10-20
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-10-20


(Re-send with correct subject)


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





Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg


Review Date:                     

19 October




IETF LC End Date:             2






IETF Telechat Date:         

30 October 2014



  I have found a number of issues. They are of editorial nature, but makes it difficult to understand the mechanism. I ask the authors to look at those, and consider if/how they can be addressed.


Major Issues: None


Minor Issues: None




In the Introduction, you say that one of the goal of RDAP is to provide security services, that do not exist in WHOIS.


However, in section 3 you then say that RDAP doesn’t provide any of these security services, but relies on other protocols.


First, I think you need to re-formulate the text in the Introduction, and talk about how other protocols can be used to provide security services for RDAP.


Second, there is no text on why “other protocols” couldn’t be used to provide security services for WHOIS. I think you need to

say that, if you want to claim that RDAP provides better security than WHOIS.




              In some places you say that additional/alternative mechanisms may be defined in the future. I think it would be good to in

the Introduction indicate that additional/alternative mechanisms can be added in the future.




              You start some subsections by describing what WHOIS does/doesn’t do. I think you should first describe of

the specific security service is provided for RDAP, and then later describe e.g. why the same cannot be provided






              Section 3.1.1. says: “Federated authentication mechanisms used by RDAP are OPTIONAL.”


              That statement is confusing. Does it mean that everything else in the document is mandatory to support?




              The name of section 3.3 is “Availability”. I don’t see how that is a security service, and the text mostly talks about

throttling. Would it be more appropriate to say “Request throttling” instead?





              Section 3.4 says:


              “Web services such as RDAP commonly use HTTP Over TLS [RFC2818] to provide that protection by encrypting all

              traffic sent on the connection between client and server.”


              To me that sounds like something from a BCP document. I think you should say that the document defines

the usage of HTTP over TLS for providing the security service.


Editorial nits: None