Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
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://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps --> 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://www.verisignlabs.com/ 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 --> 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. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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]). --> 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. --> 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]. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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) --> 12) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Sep 22, 2025, at 10:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/09/22 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 * [email protected] (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). * [email protected], 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, [email protected] 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/rfc9874.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9874.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9874.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9874.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9874-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9874-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9874-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9874 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9874 (draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-10) Title : Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Author(s) : S. Hollenbeck, W. Carroll, G. Akiwate WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
