> -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:25 PM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WG Last Call: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/ > > At the last IETF meeting, it was agreed in the REGEXT meeting that the > following document is ready for submission to the IESG to be considered > for publication as a Proposed Standard: > > Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/ > > Ulrich Wisser is the document shepherd and in that role he agrees the > document is ready for publication. > > If any working group member objects to the publication of this document > please respond on the list by close of business everywhere, Wednesday, 3 > May 2017. If there are no objections the document will be submitted to > the IESG.
I have re-read and re-reviewed draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. I have not attempted to validate the schema or examples. I support publication, but I do have some comments to share: Section 1: s/In addition, the [RFC7848] defines/In addition, RFC 7848 [RFC7848] defines/ Section 2.1: "Upon receiving a valid request to create a Launch Application, the server MUST" There's no mention of what a "valid request to create a Launch Application" looks like, so I'm reading this paragraph and not understanding what the trigger for this MUST clause is. I think it would be helpful to say something like "Upon receiving a valid <domain:create> command" instead. "If the <domain:create> command processes a request synchronously without the use of an intermediate Launch Application, then an application identifier MAY not be needed." Does "MAY not be needed" mean that an application identifier will not be returned in this case? Is it more accurate to say "then an application identifier is not needed and will not be returned"? "MAY" implies "optional", and I don't quite get if it's OK to return an application identifier or not. Section 2.2: "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) is the default Trademark Validator and is reserved the Validator Identifier of "tmch"." And "The list of validator identifiers and the relationship to issuer identifiers is out of scope for this document." This sounds like we might need an IANA registry of trademark validator identifiers. If we don't have a registry, how do processors know which values are valid? Does it matter? The text should be clear about this. I don't the text can say "out of scope" while reserving a specific value for one validator. Section 2.5: "A Launch Application MUST and a Launch Registration MAY be handled as a domain name of [RFC5731] in "pendingCreate" status" What does "a domain name of [RFC5731]" mean? I *think* this is trying to say "an EPP domain name object as specified in RFC 5731 [RFC5731]". If that's the case, please consider changing the text. Section 2.6: "A server MUST support at least one of the following models" I'm looking at the schema where the createType is defined. It says that the mark type is choice with minOccurs="0". Does this mean that the mark can be omitted? If so, that appears to be inconsistent with "MUST support at least one" above. Section 4.1: please update the copyright date. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
