Fair enough. I missed that subtlety. On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:33 AM Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin, > > Thank you for the review and feedback. > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow 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 4/9/21, 8:17 PM, "Martin Duke via Datatracker" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-06: No Objection > > 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1494LouXp6bnWPFFb6b5w8o2N6PBUWORrjKHj7DaJ1fIpki6yYVATnUosU_eR__hWijPM6aZrt4vX-R70aY_Ve_217eTqq4T3H1p3S5Jmr8L0THnw_Vx6y04g1mtiIN_2y01sFHCguCYGtz1gEUVkFYy73r5m6vh-lXVKBt7OCUB2Ptb7_Cf5ajuHaeu2_LbG6VMiYAyLuS2AaWhRknr2RYBYFb_b2wh-BeAmqodQNRX1Xfl_LAXAa8LlKnXEMIKT/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tY59lQ76IHNrNSCIANCtv_U3SJiFbCWPeNsk4IQ4UyZpg9VaGurEaU4pEsj5bPBvSOY8M4-8dwJR04JEHaz7xQxWqYnKBw8V-IYqayrShT4hPYDmk-Rs-o9w5cW0z_QABUGhNHzN7zCR8S9j0EdScfgTBC072IFBPGEPBFMjIZr-w_yfRbb_VYwghXmTt60IFtBBPMRul1biaf2rUeCcO3Uh65Boc76I86PYBa-IikrXpA8chtAHSjMPSlYsHcFG/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer%2F > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In the third paragraph of (5.3) there is a roundabout way of saying > how the > registry responds to a valid info request by saying that it MUST NOT > send no > authorization value, or a non-empty authorization value. It would be > more > straightforward to say something like > > "the registry MUST respond to a valid info request by the > non-sponsoring > registrar with an empty authorization value". > > JG - The third paragraph needs to be as explicit as possible to cover > never including the authorization information value, but with the support > of an optional existence indication of an authorization value only to the > sponsoring registrar. Considering the combination of non-empty elements, > empty elements, and two different types of clients (registrars), I believe > the paragraph needs to stay as is. > > >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
