[regext] I18ndir early review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10

Reviewer: Yoshiro Yoneya Review result: Ready with Issues Summary: This draft is in good shape regarding protocol. Regarding to operation, having an additional guidance for registrar transfer from EAI supporting registrar to non EAI supporting registrar would be better. Major issues:

Re: [regext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10

Pete, Thanks for the review and feedback. My responses are embedded below prefixed with "JG - ". -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 6/1/22, 1:14 PM, "Pete Resnick via

[regext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10

Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: On the Right Track I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For

Re: [regext] Feedback about breakage analysis

Il 01/06/2022 18:46, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: Thank you, Mario. Let me review your feedback, and adjust the analysis accordingly. Probably, early next week. :) Jasdip No problem. Take your time. I appreciated your effort in summarizing the different approaches. Really think it could be

Re: [regext] Feedback about breakage analysis

Thank you, Mario. Let me review your feedback, and adjust the analysis accordingly. Probably, early next week. :) Jasdip On 6/1/22, 12:33 PM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo" wrote: Hi Jasdip, I would suggest to add Approach C and split some scenarios into smaller changes.

[regext] Feedback about breakage analysis

Hi Jasdip, I would suggest to add Approach C and split some scenarios into smaller changes. I mean, some of the scenarios presented merge breaking and non-breaking changes. I would classify the scenarios reflecting the basic breaking and non-breaking changes as in the following.

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, Referencing the 'strict' model would indicate that the RFC language is clear, and we've gone through the language in the RFCs in detail in prior messages on the mailing list. There is no language in the RFCs that would make approach A, B, or C non-compliant. There is a mix of language

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Jasdip, please find my comments embedded. Il 31/05/2022 22:20, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: Hi Mario, Few comments, and one suggestion. Thanks, Jasdip On 5/30/22, 4:50 AM, "Mario Loffredo" wrote: Hi Jasdip, the current approach appears unpractical to me as it results in