I did a detailed review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees, and below is my feedback:
1. The XML namespace “urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.25” should be changed to
“urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-1.0”
* This could wait until after the WGLC, but I want to raise the issue.
2. The XML Namespace section should register both the namespace and the XML
schema similar to draft-ietf-regext-launchphase.
* The URI should start with “urn:”, where the URI field for both the
namespace and the XML schema should be urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-1.0
3. Put customName in quotes in section 3.1 “Client Commands” as in ‘…uses
the “customName” attribute…’.
4. The normative reference to draft-ietf-regext-launchphase needs to be
changed to an RFC once draft-ietf-regext-launchphase is published as an RFC.
5. The first sentence of the third paragraph of section 3.2 “Currency
Codes” may need to be revised, where it currently states “…the server MUST
determine the currency based on the client's account settings which MUST be
agreed by the client and server via an out-of-band channel.” A server that
only supports a single server-defined currency will not have client-specific
settings and will not require per-client agreement. My recommendation is to
modify this portion of the sentence to read “the server MUST determine the
currency based on the server default currency or based on the client’s account
settings which are agreed by the client and server via an out-of-band channel.”
I don’t believe the extension requires the normative MUST for the client and
server agreement and the extension should support a server default currency.
1. Should the reference to “Registry Grace Period extension” in the second
paragraph of section 3.4.2 “Grace Periods” refer to RFC3915 instead like with
the start of the first paragraph?
2. I recommend replacing “ie “ from “(ie <create>…)” to “(e.g. <create>…)”
in the second paragraph of section 3.5 “Account Balance” and 3.6 “Credit Limit”.
3. The statement about the use of the absolute value of the <fee:balance>
being equal to or exceeds the value of the <fee:creditLimit> could be clearer
in section 3.6. I believe that it should read “…absolute value of a negative
<fee:balance> being equal ro or exceeds…”.
4. You should change ‘“en” English’ to ‘“en” (English)’ in section 3.9
“Reason” to match RFC 5730.
5. Modify “All returned failed <fee:command> elements that MUST …” to be
“All returned failed <fee:command> element MUST…” in section 3.9 “Reason”.
6. Change “for that same domain name” to “for that same object” in section 4
“Server Handling of Fee Information”.
7. In section 5.1.1, the <fee:command> “standard” attribute needs to be
defined for the <check> command.
8. Change “client which” to “client that” or “client, which” in the 3rd,
4th, and 5th paragraphs of section 4 “Server Handling of Fee Information”.
9. I believe section 5.1.1.1 “Server Handling of Elements” can be removed,
since the client cannot pass the <fee:class> element any longer.
10. In section 5.1.2, section 5.2.1, section 5.2.2, section 5.2.3, section
5.2.4, and section 5.2.5 , the sentence “when the extension has been selected
during a <login> command” could be modified to read “when the extension is
included in the <login> command service extensions.” Similarly, the sentence
“, the client selected the extension when it logged in” could be modified to
read “, the client included the extension in the <login> command service
extensions”.
11. You may need to add the copyright text in section 6.1 similar to what is
included in section 4.1 of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase.
12. Section 8.1 XML Namespace should be updated as defined below.
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in
[RFC3688<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3688>].
Registration request for the launch namespace:
URI: ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.25
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the launch XML schema:
URI: ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.25
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
18. I recommend changing the section 8.2 EPP Extension Registry “Name of
Extension” to match the full name of the extension as in “Registry Fee
Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)” and the “Registrant
Name and Email Address” field should be set to “IESG,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>”.
1. We may want to add at least one more entry in the Implementation Status
section.
2. The “Implementation Status” section is misspelled.
Thanks,
—
JG
[cid:[email protected]]
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email protected]
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
