Approved Scott
> -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 12:16 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Carroll, William <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9874 <draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete- > bcp-10> for your review > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > Hi Scott, > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1MbBmpwyKrenY7YyXQS49gdm- > OSb5ODd2jPZ3FtoTvMLqHMpTyQsMLB2J2flaxKdJRYC3osYhOFJlxWuSQl4bjsZEIoY > cJIBgCKL6- > 9puFkASmLjDU5XL3rinLFkzs56jQoJ6ELN7DZG4L6iTu2lbPc9ixeSIIGuqDPze3TXpW > pbLqZX- > ga0WBalSDh5rqZmzJCIQX07GsgiEd8tvD2e3ZhaYiHiTXlgvawHKkrFzL4_kyzRWK9d > 6gHurlpMCrlZfMpdAY2Xvpc1SvgKtM0xMBYfG7yPSD6wXPsc3k- > 9yQx4/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874.xml > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1jfY9JFXQpu8BO7UEMOjiV_4- > nekSNxnJc3JfnD4t4vforeau582J2NABsoDEt4329MQ50TYipRIE_ahMPOgMadFgi0 > PqgHp4xPmmRql9n8JobErELrG66e66f0TD1- > QSHPXxYj_ABJ4eMCFYFOHoem7skDo0kOrI4WyhFiLnMV3LoZG1JRxB- > p4Vm0Zo2W4UwZS2YrpfH3SffQ4plO_E_w9Xz8riI- > EWugNmWqU6ECKzXzX7fFwZaCiJAHqQqA7V4bGycvmlTi2cX00rOH52QDBX5ahx > AZzk_e7p5-4IObo/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874.txt > https://secure- > web.cisco.com/1SfwYOUwhfuaMK18vPyJl097YhQc7RnHxUJOfZEuowHflTpXLo4F > 7RrvIGKxHForcAINT5_BDMpVDHxyCcqqlluThc2c4hDqg3VWUz3xvf0zGKxiG2U7z > E7i1sxiiO9AxjPd1g6PqfTL9NIeoBo4OlLstK2hj5_61vUyTrWuX94KozfkioU7pk0cejz > 9tWHjdmwqi0Nu_FHsfHtuOTCWbuMu48A7UeMaloVJEI5wpncbdyg83dsrWLJJOv > hisI24EpSn0fxWQOYsQy2ZxPxTs9Y_ZbOnDpo0KjdI4aah8N30/https%3A%2F%2Fw > ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874.html > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1C- > ZOq5zkd1rWmPL7kKWOrO9XRbXHrvrH1mHojdRbHxb0O9ExxlV8YgPsqyUjPEghO > WwAPRC-AVKw0U- > x3UHaGVbfoDqqZJmhzgRFckLUvf9MpST0Uldy2sINst4Y1dD5rXYsF8LM81GcyggK > M9YHX1ueNHZNMntLjJuHDZpun_- > gVtTR52OyVKjNQ56CUieYgCUIEBlqPDRdFKooSMfW5K5yWaH- > qjLNh_Ks4JRAmPU_2KXOcVXIwm-0DbizuELDns9Eo0TkZEftB46tX21P- > Wc7j659PdQpAUVP6o0mMps/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1dXuwWZMhaTKJM- > GMrHCMg6b_J6KSh5lWXp9Zm8BkOmLg9Mep7iHxAjElqWRednQYCzSTI1o7mBw > N9gA-3CJXqOTr7xYKAZs- > prMBY9mlJLT2bPQES9rcrpSG30SazyykNdG9F8BGqokJB2j6ZGxQwRug5l4CcnhWe > MG8C53kmFnq44bmRwDyvn0TQHZ3DrbtpD_EW4z29p0_dWAGr0Nn2xkUPgRaJ > q6YNtTuzNj1AR5q00kcGDCU7AVeR3SFfahOIPVFQ9hDWFW4YU4vhVdzhc6tBzwyr > eh3T_DgpYDAtIM/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874- > diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://secure- > web.cisco.com/1aF8c7yRLhkP_K5d- > _0eWrKMs_xWbLc7Gs4RWH5MEAxt2fUt09w58Rh3vie7IiSYJWk7MaoqT3Jh7zItC > hLvfKQaMpjzvPF8bm1v_JeMTZoH17SvwCQp74FzCYANbbJb3nbSz9-7VyyfpY- > z0DKQSPpT- > wmMCULWWUf4JZQ0MN6tqwiledFqd7nKx918K8CqYpqD9N7QOEWZG2DhnsQg > PwJnvHlYRW8q63JNAnawq04fjm4uCdxPf2EQSeX99p0pjzC4q09rl91OqAodk9doG > _-8VtuUy9Xd8BWPkPQ0ggrQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1zsu- > 3TdoVwEiabnZjIgPpSczigkdn1MrAb9ieKC7FPOQ_m3VQL6FuzzSEdnfRxJpBhlHQd > DtfQZebUiAAbAdOoEaW8gjhX5hULxxgFBwSB2E_gCFfJah_rsipVaDL3kKhp6MJqG > beaF6pkQ9T-cXBidi7nNwgXQoSNXhUYrZPSoGtGuynE76czyToJeCDJWO- > gavW44MkDsrBSbzGJr8z70nBA8D1dul0TZCENF- > 5DQMomh_2CfFmoEm8e7slxfcxGkMwA5xfENfacVXzoXOowu_UB5D0- > ipfDviPKQQqi4/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9874- > auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates > you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1TZpY315Zq_e17qHZ7kjTOc_SV65ZPej- > nqe9bfOK76Bfi1Gz7DbUIsHbFdbW_1CJjA0lJiubjKIYLHBK5ZC9- > T9CfWWfkT4C1FqowQ4KdVL74LcoDbh_OZ8jMmakacFn6os- > zySsuawP2tCJDrf_WUh48XqqX14R49I0BbZu1R3fTvTu49rc1lp5bBS7Nyj4dlHLc5e_ > O8rtCanjGGPiXsjVR62KfZdXWfWEQr0iMSsV807ezDD3mxKYmjRVGyPhMCo60do > SDAEp1BYYVJViSJZbHgkcCcdb1yNx4G5f4hE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc- > editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9874 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Sep 23, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 1:26 AM > >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; Carroll, William > >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9874 > >> <draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete- > >> bcp-10> for your review > >> > >> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not > >> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > >> know the content is safe. > >> > >> Authors, > >> > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > >> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > > [SAH] We've noted our responses below. In addition, we've found one term > that's used in the text that requires an additional sentence for > clarification. > We've already discussed the topic with Orie (cc'd here), and he's approved our > approach to adding a clarification to the text in Section 5. > > > > OLD > > Notably, the scope of any practice discussed here is the EPP server that > > adopts > the practice and the domains managed by it. > > > > NEW > > Notably, the scope of any practice discussed here is the EPP server that > > adopts > the practice, the domains managed by it, and the associated host objects where > "associated" is described in RFCs 5731 [RFC5731] and 5732 [RFC5732]. > > > >> 1) <!--[rfced] This document has been assigned a new BCP number. > >> Please let us know if this is not correct (i.e., it should be part of > >> an existing BCP). > >> > >> See the complete list of BCPs here: > >> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ronHlStzrkPTBidwHiueJ0APXes- > >> > JyLb_dBGHiEBdouxvSEF3wsn6jC3V4DvPr1VhLhhmMtJ3PrSfqL4D1UWipGqCuX7I > >> > 39p4_j44l207oCjAyU89hiCwVaFSc0p240fujlWKdNUEvGwVfq_ajLa7iv1seDnOQ6e > >> > qr_JXbQbRGq2tgVkIbPQ7UOk0E_ahr9cbqPEundX3WkSEMpW_kBkjtB17xI35eaE > >> uQwK25lRO5DfaaLfj4EzXud5tFWHUBHdfa- > >> R0oCzlVaYWhRVjnLJ1blksuw72gt0t2LF1VqTKfk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc- > >> editor.org%2Fbcps > >> --> > > > > [SAH] This is correct. A new BCP number should be assigned. > > > >> 2) <!--[rfced] We note that Scott Hollenbeck and William Carroll have > >> the same authors' address listed. However, Scott's organization is > >> listed as "Verisign Labs", while William's is "Verisign". Should > >> these be made consistent in the following and the document header? > >> > >> Scott Hollenbeck > >> Verisign Labs > >> 12061 Bluemont Way > >> Reston, VA 20190 > >> United States of America > >> Email: [email protected] > >> URI: https://secure- > >> > web.cisco.com/1lym9v5MxG01dIeXO4nDizhfNw4aZYvxr5Yh2KEWudPWvPviy- > >> F4S2kDdzwSRDDnORgAAeCwsE- > >> > HYoDEj3QkF6YU91pIOMAkWxJdkQMKXvTmiUfhx67ZQTrYEpO_4ss9XK4n7RaybL > >> > T8diXMcVmImU8u6x5qFtiZSb5Zl6wwsPsLN5bGezyF5zimFvxjZA5xtWKzxS2Fekf- > >> > wFq2dqWbVh1OEkMpeKIohu6M4VRAcxy80ZRXFPIDFVQd17bFfkc00R6qA2j1CKd > >> L5wS-i8SeJjvtWRA-wbKTAm_SSnLyjPENwvT_l2hH7iY9ueBE3c46- > >> /https%3A%2F%2Fwww.verisignlabs.com%2F > >> > >> > >> William Carroll > >> Verisign > >> 12061 Bluemont Way > >> Reston, VA 20190 > >> United States of America > >> Phone: +1 703 948-3200 > >> Email: [email protected] > >> URI: https://verisign.com > >> --> > > > > [SAH] Yes, please use Verisign Labs for both. > > > >> 3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we add citations to [RFC5731] and > >> [RFC5732] in this sentence? > >> > >> Original: > >> This document describes the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT be deleted" > >> text and the risk associated with host object renaming. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> This document describes the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT be deleted" > >> text in [RFC5731] and [RFC5732] as well as the risk associated with > >> host object renaming. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] Sure, that's fine. > > > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI - Some sentences cite RFCs 5731 and 5732 but did > >> not include cite tags. We have added cite tags to these citations. > >> For example: > >> > >> Original: > >> The text in RFCs 5731 and 5732 was written to > >> encourage clients to take singular, discrete steps to delete objects > >> in a way that avoids breaking DNS resolution functionality. > >> > >> Current: > >> The text in [RFC5731] and [RFC5732] was written to > >> encourage clients to take singular, discrete steps to delete objects > >> in a way that avoids breaking DNS resolution functionality. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] That's fine. > > > >> 5) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "as can" to "which > >> can" > >> below? > >> > >> Original: > >> Implementations of EPP can have dependencies on the hierarchical > >> domain object/host object relationship, as can exist in a relational > >> database. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Implementations of EPP can have dependencies on the hierarchical > >> domain object/host object relationship, which can exist in a relational > >> database. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] That's fine. > > > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC7535] uses "EMPTY.AS112.ARPA" rather > >> than "empty.as112.arpa". Should this be updated to match [RFC7535]? > >> > >> Current: > >> "empty.as112.arpa" is designed to be used with DNAME aliasing, not > >> as a parent domain for sacrificial name servers (see Section 3 of > >> [RFC7535]). > >> --> > > > > [SAH] Yes, please use uppercase characters. > > > >> 7) <!--[rfced] Does "removed from the zone" apply to both "domains > >> with no remaining name servers" and "domains with only one remaining > name server"? > >> If yes, may we update this sentence as follows? Note that this > >> sentence occurs in Sections 5.2.1.1.2 and 5.2.2.1.2. > >> > >> Original: > >> This could result in domains with no remaining name servers being > >> removed from the zone or domains with only one remaining name server. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> This could result in domains with no remaining name servers or > >> with only one remaining name server being removed from the zone. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] We'd prefer something like this: > > > > "This could result in domains with no name servers being removed from > > the zone or domains with only one name server remaining in the zone." > > > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Informative reference RFC 8499 has been obsoleted by > >> RFC 9499. > >> May we update the reference to point to RFC 9499? We note that > "NXDOMAIN" > >> is mentioned in RFC 9499. > >> > >> RFC 8499 is cited in the text as follows: > >> Requests to the root for this domain would result > >> in NXDOMAIN response [RFC8499]. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] Yes, that's fine. > > > >> 9) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have alphabetized the names listed in the > >> Acknowledgments section. We believe that was the intent as only one > >> was out of order. Let us know if you prefer the original order. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] That change is fine. > > > >> 10) <!--[rfced] FYI - As both "nameserver" and "name server" were > >> used throughout the document. We have updated all instances to "name > server" > >> for consistency. Please review and let us know of any objections. > >> --> > > > > [SAH] That's fine. > > > >> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have added an expansion for the following > >> abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please > >> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > >> > >> Top-Level Domain (TLD) > >> --> > > > > [SAH] That's fine. > > > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > >> the online Style Guide <https://secure- > >> web.cisco.com/1SkvcGcLm7rHlDGJeQZxcpRT54XiBPIq-Oqx5h7- > >> qRg4O9nPsnGqiyMqmH- > >> rKQBq4nIXXFLxhvTkvkkZLe540tVqQB4p7wC3MFE7v31khFUWS9Oer5ejV9N- > >> 8LRYEtciO2SjvDf9O40-9QMUe_T- > >> > 2KFhOVFL5FS_mCXnLAyO8ubttjPUlzYQKrQ_s3VZsbKwtTWqKzSSRhgJLmko7ipCX0 > >> CZ5Ipol7QzPLs9hXdCsoTvRgGOPFMynO70OSH5HPy- > >> > EMj8muo7qdjpJ3dPb3VbgWmUJGvJqCZF7JRBa2nq4ocE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_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. > >> > >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > >> should still be reviewed as a best practice. > >> --> > > > > All good - thanks! > > > > Scott -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
