Good work on this document, and thanks. I have only some small points to
comment on, which can be fixed later, and I’ll request last call as soon as
I’ve sent this message. My apologies for being swamped and not getting to
this as soon as I should have.
Barry
— Section 3 —
While the main motivation for developing this specification is rooted
on the domain name industry, the specification has been designed to
be as general as possible.
This strikes me as awkward English. May I suggest a rewording?:
NEW
While the domain name industry has been the main target for
this specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible.
END
— Section 5.1 —
Each registry is responsible for maintaining its
own escrow deposits identifier space to ensure uniqueness.
Nit: Make it << deposits’ >>, with the trailing apostrophe to make it
possessive.
o An OPTIONAL "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the
previous Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This
attribute MUST be used in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type).
It seems that labelling this as OPTIONAL isn’t really right, because its
use depends upon the deposit type, right? Perhaps this?:
NEW
o A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous
Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This attribute is REQUIRED
in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in Incremental
Deposits (“INCR” type), and is not used in Full Deposits (“FULL
type).
END
— Section 5.4 —
This section of the deposit SHOULD NOT be present in Full Deposits.
When rebuilding a registry it SHOULD be ignored if present in a Full
Deposit.
Questions about both “SHOULD”s:
For the “SHOULD NOT”, why might an implementation need to put that section
in? That is, why is this not “MUST NOT”?
For the “SHOULD”, why is it not “MUST”? What else but ignoring it could a
rebuilder possibly do?
— Section 10 —
Depending on local policies, some elements or most likely, the whole
deposit will be considered confidential. As such the registry
transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the
necessary precautions like encrypting the data itself and/or the
transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.
Nits: This needs a comma after “or” in “or, most likely,” and a comma after
“As such”. Also, “like encrypting” should be “such as encrypting”.
It is also of the utmost importance the authentication of the parties
passing data escrow deposit files.
NEW
Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files
is also of the utmost importance.
END
Apart from that rewording, it seems odd that something “of the utmost
importance” is labelled as SHOULD, rather than MUST, yes?
RECOMMENDED to ensure not only the file was transmitted correctly
from the registry, but also the contents are also "meaningful".
Nits: this needs “that” before both “the file” and “the contents”.
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
