Gavin,
While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as
necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Please note that the title has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC
7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). We also made "To" lowercase (which
matches the title of RFC 9803).
Original:
RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL Values)
Current:
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension
for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->
3) <!--[rfced] This document uses four different terms for the
"ttl0_data" JSON object and its "values"/"remarks" sub-parts:
"property" (used most frequently), "member", "element", and
"attribute". For consistency, please let us know which term
should be used throughout. (We note that RFC 9083 consistently
uses "member" for JSON name/value pairs.)
Use of "property" (Section 3):
Servers that support this extension MAY include a "ttl0_data"
property in any domain...
Use of "member" (Section 3):
...clients that do not implement this specification SHOULD
ignore the "ttl0_data" member.
Uses of "element" (Section 4.2):
...should explicitly carve out the "values" property of
"ttl0_data" elements.
Since the list of record types appearing in "ttl0_data" elements
may change with time...
Uses of "attribute" (Section 3):
An example domain object with a valid "ttl0_data" attribute is
provided below.
An example nameserver object with a valid "ttl0_data" attribute
is provided below.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] We note that the use of quotation marks around terms
tagged with <tt> is inconsistent. In most instances, the term is
set off with quotation marks in addition to the <tt> tags (e.g.,
"<tt>ttl0_data</tt>"), but in the instances below, the quotation
marks are omitted. For consistency, please let us know if
quotation marks should be added in these instances or removed
from the other instances throughout the document.
Note: In the last example, "ttl0" has quotation marks but
"rdapConformance" does not.
Current:
Section 3:
The <tt>ttl0_data</tt> property is an object that has the
following properties:
Section 3.1:
The DNS record type mnemonics that appear as the property
names in <tt>values</tt> objects MUST be in all capitals...
Section 3.2:
Servers returning responses containing TTL values MUST include
the string "<tt>ttl0</tt>" in the <tt>rdapConformance</tt>
array.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Sourcecode examples in Section 3
a) In the first sourcecode example, we note an extra space before
"registry". Is this intentional, or should "registry" be moved
over one space to the left? And should a period be added after
"https://domain.example"; for consistency?
Current:
"description": [
"For more information about the .example",
" registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,",
"see https://domain.example";
Perhaps:
"description": [
"For more information about the .example",
"registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,",
"see https://domain.example.";
b) In the second sourcecode example, we note a space after
"TTL" - is that intentional, or should the extra space be
deleted?
Current:
"description": [
"The .example registry does not permit TTL ",
"values for nameservers to be changed."
Perhaps:
"description": [
"The .example registry does not permit TTL",
"values for nameservers to be changed."
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Is the intention to cite the names of the RFCs (option A)
or the protocol and extension names (option B)? Additionally,
please confirm if our updates to the latter half of the sentence
correctly reflect that it is the EPP TTL extension (RFC 9803)
that does not need to be implemented. Note that we also made
"server" plural.
Original:
This specification is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol [RFC5730] (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL)
Values [RFC9803], but registry operators do not need to implement
that extension in their EPP server in order to implement this RDAP
extension.
Perhaps A (document titles):
This specification is complementary to "Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)" [RFC5730] and "Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values" [RFC9803], but
registry operators do not need to implement the EPP extension
described in [RFC9803] in their EPP servers in order to implement
this RDAP extension.
or
Perhaps B (protocol/extension names):
This specification is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730] and the EPP Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live
(TTL) Values extension [RFC9803], but registry operators do not
need to implement that EPP extension in their EPP servers in order
to implement this RDAP extension.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] In the Acknowledgements section, note that we removed
"Sarah Tarrant" as we don't normally include RPC staff names in
this section, especially since multiple editors help to process
the document.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following
abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
Please review this and each expansion in the document
carefully to ensure correctness.
Delegation Signer (DS)
-->
9) <!--[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.
Karen Moore
RFC Production Center
On Aug 14, 2026, at 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Final Review for RFC-to-be 10037 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension>
Your document is now available for Final Review (previously 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;
see the Unavailable Authors section
(https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors).
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 an archival mailing list
to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial
queue; 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/rfc10037.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
Details on the status of your Final Review are here:
https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10037/
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 10037 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension)
Title : RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL Values)
Author(s) : Gavin Brown
WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
