Hi Alissa,
Thanks very much for the review! I'm keeping pending changes available here, to
be published after the telechat:
https://github.com/IPv6-mPvD/mpvd-ietf-drafts/pull/25
I've updated the URN reference to specify the correct URL; that was due to my
errors in filling out the RFC markdown correctly! I've also updated the text
that makes the reference to be clearer in intent:
If a set of PvD Additional Information keys
are defined by an organization that has a Formal URN Namespace {{URN}},
the URN namespace SHOULD be used rather than the "vendor-*" format.
The unnecessary MAY has been removed, and the sentence now reads:
If the HTTP status of
the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the response is expected to
be a single JSON object.
I've also changed "privacy address" to "temporary address" as suggested.
Thanks,
Tommy
> On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-10: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a nit that should be easy to resolve but I'm confused by it, so I'm
> flagging it here. The reference for [URN] in Section 10.2 says '[URN] "URN
> Namespaces", n.d..,' which seems like an error. Given the way [URN] is used in
> 4.3, I'm not sure I understand why organizations with formal URN namespaces
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1>
> would be expected to be using PvDs, if that is what the document intends to
> convey. In any event, at a minimum the reference needs to be fixed.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> = Section 4.1 =
>
> "If the HTTP
> status of the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the host MAY
> get a file containing a single JSON object."
>
> This seems like a misuse of normative MAY, as the behavior is determined by
> the
> sending server, not the host.
>
> = Section 7 =
>
> s/IPv6 Privacy Address/IPv6 temporary address/
> (to align with RFC 7721 terminology)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
