Hello Andy,
Thanks a lot. Some comments inline below.
> 2026年7月1日 04:42，Andy Newton via Datatracker <[email protected]> 写道：
>
> Andy Newton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-10
> CC @anewton1998
>
> * line numbers:
> -
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-10.txt&submitcheck=True
>
> * comment syntax:
> - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
>
> * "Handling Ballot Positions":
> - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>
> ## Discuss
>
> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/,
> a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following
> topics.
>
> ### MUST or must
>
> 389 Batch-oriented processing (combining multiple EPP commands in a
> 390 single data unit) is not permitted. Each EPP data unit must
> 391 contain a single EPP message.
>
> Should this be a normative MUST?
I think that MUST is fine.
>
> ### Server Requirement for Client Fall Back
>
> 407 8.1. Clients Fall Back with Management of Multiple Transport
>
> 409 If the establishment of an EoQ connection fails, clients MAY
> attempt
> 410 to fall back to EPP over TCP as specified in [RFC5734], depending
> on
> 411 local deployment and security policy. It is up to clients to
> 412 determine the mix of transports that best meets their business
> needs.
>
> While it is up to the client to determine if fall back is necessary, what are
> the requirements on the server? If a client falls back to EoT but the server
> doesn't have EoT, isn't that an interoperability issue? I think this can be
> solved with the following addition:
>
> Servers MUST offer service over TCP (EoT [RFC5374]) for clients that fall
> back to TCP.
>
>
Thanks for your kind suggestion.
Section 8.3 has discussed " QUIC Support Announcement and Discovery”.
In future, some servers may support EoQ only.
How about this one:
If EoQ is not offered, servers MUST offer service over TCP (EoT [RFC5734])
for clients that fall
back to TCP.
Best Regards
Jiankang Yao
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
