Greetings, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We have reformatted the list below for readability; please review and let us know if you prefer otherwise. Original: <ttl:ttl> elements have the optional following attributes, depending on whether they appear in an EPP command or response: 1. "for", which is REQUIRED in both commands and responses, and which specifies the DNS record type to which the TTL value pertains. This attribute MUST have one of the following values: "NS", "DS", "DNAME", "A", "AAAA" or "custom"; 2. If the value of the "for" attribute is "custom", then the <ttl:ttl> element MUST also have a "custom" attribute containing a DNS record type conforming with the regular expression in Section 3.1 of [RFC6895]. Additionally, the record type MUST be registered with IANA in [IANA-RRTYPES]. 3. "min", which MUST NOT be present in EPP commands but MAY be present in EPP responses (see Section 2.1.1), and which is used by the server to indicate the lowest value that may be set; 4. "default", which MUST NOT be present in EPP commands but MAY be present in EPP responses (see Section 2.1.1), and which is used by the server to indicate the default value; 5. "max", which MUST NOT be present in EPP commands but MAY be present in EPP responses (see Section 2.1.1), and which is used by the server to indicate the highest value that may be set; Current: "for" REQUIRED in both commands and responses, and specifies the DNS record type to which the TTL value pertains. This attribute MUST have one of the following values: "NS", "DS", "DNAME", "A", "AAAA" or "custom". "custom" If the value of the "for" attribute is "custom", then the <ttl:ttl> element MUST also have a "custom" attribute containing a DNS record type conforming with the regular expression in Section 3.1 of [RFC6895]. Additionally, the record type MUST be registered with IANA in [IANA-RRTYPES]. "min" MUST NOT be present in EPP commands but MAY be present in EPP responses (see Section 2.1.1). It is also used by the server to indicate the lowest value that may be set. "default" MUST NOT be present in EPP commands but MAY be present in EPP responses (see Section 2.1.1). It is also used by the server to indicate the default value. "max" MUST NOT be present in EPP commands but MAY be present in EPP responses (see Section 2.1.1). It is also used by the server to indicate the highest value that may be set. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] The section titles for 1.2.1.3.1 and 1.2.2. are similar. For clarity, which of these options do you prefer? Or, please feel free to suggest otherwise. a) Make the title of Section 1.2.1.3.1 more specific, or b) Include the example in 1.2.1.3 and remove section 1.2.1.3.1, or c) Move the example in 1.2.1.3.1 to a subsection of Section 1.2.2 ("Examples"). Original: 1.2.1.3. The <ttl:info> element [...] 1.2.1.3.1. Example <ttl:info policy="true"/> 1.2.2. Examples Perhaps (if option b): 1.2.1.3. The <ttl:info> element The <ttl:info> element is used by clients to request that the server include additional information in <info> responses for domain and host objects. It has a single OPTIONAL policy attribute, which takes a boolean value with a default value of false. The semantics of this element are described in Section 2.1.1. Here's an example: <ttl:info policy="true"/> 1.2.2. Examples --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.2: May we update the name of the extension as shown below? If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry accordingly (https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/epp-extensions.xhtml). This would match the edited title of this document as well as the value's name as it appears in RFC 9499. CURRENT: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL) values SUGGESTED (lowercase 't' and capital 'V'): Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values In that registry, we note that "Name of Extension" for this one also matches the title of the RFC: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Secure Authorization Information for Transfer (RFC 9167) --> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Regarding usage of <tt>, <em>, and <strong> elements, please review the occurrences and let us know if any updates are needed for consistency. Details below. In the HTML and PDF outputs, <tt> yields fixed-width font. In the text output, there is no change. - In this document: seemingly used for RR names, attribute names, and some examples. In the HTML and PDF outputs, <em> yields italics. In the text output, <em> yields an underscore before and after. - In this document: used for one instance of emphasis. In the HTML and PDF outputs, <strong> yields bold. In the text output, <strong> yields an asterisk before and after. - In this document: used for field names in the IANA Considerations. - We recommend removing these, as the asterisks seem unnecessary in the text file, and this font styling is not typically used in IANA Considerations sections. Please let us know if you agree. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. For example, please consider whether "white space" should be updated in the text below: Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not required features of this protocol. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/kf/ar On Jun 2, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/06/02 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9803-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9803 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9803 (draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-18) Title : Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values Author(s) : G. Brown WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
