Thanks for the explanation. I cleared my DISCUSS.

Alissa


> On Jan 21, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> 
> Thank you for your review and comments.  I answer your question below.
> 
> -- 
> 
> JG
> 
> 
> 
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> [email protected] 
> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
> 
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
> 
> On 1/21/20, 1:34 PM, "Alissa Cooper via Datatracker" <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
>    Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>    draft-ietf-regext-login-security-07: 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-regext-login-security/
> 
> 
> 
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    DISCUSS:
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    Perhaps some simple questions (apologies if I'm missing something obvious):
>    since there is no registry of custom events, how do developers of 
> independent
>    implementations know which custom events they should be aiming to support? 
> And
>    how do they understand the semantics associated with custom events beyond 
> what
>    the event names can convey?
> 
> JG - The custom security event is following an EPP extensibility pattern that 
> has been used in prior EPP RFCs (e.g., Launch Phases in RFC 8334, Contact 
> Types in RFC 8543, Operations in RFC 8590).  The definition of the custom 
> events can take many forms, such as inclusion in a server policy document or 
> use of an in-band policy query interface.  The EPP policy extension 
> draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy is an example of an EPP query 
> interface for draft-ietf-regext-login-security. 
> 
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    COMMENT:
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    = Section 5 =
> 
>    "One schema is presented here that is the EPP Login Security Extension
>       schema."
> 
>    This phrasing seems a little odd (is there more than one schema?). I would
>    suggest "The EPP Login Security Extension schema is presented here."
> 
>   JG - I like your suggested phrase better.  I'll make that change.  
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to