Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12

Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com> Wed, 17 August 2022 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <beldmit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC49FC1522BF; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 06:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zKR_DwsifHpU; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 06:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1132.google.com (mail-yw1-x1132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A31BC1522C3; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1132.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-32a09b909f6so233328657b3.0; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=eO2B6Txc7vhsiog1btByufT1HfozpETTnB8Dd4MpoIo=; b=HcbZaXGntGnLp+T8ZnccuQ5ODLg0JZTnCTBj0XfMHP6TT27tJBL4/1m90ihuzFw9w0 Jou59LkZz0362MnIdnOc4Tv/uWt7+x90qtplLSg9+Au6Fz2auZM20xNo8rZJYUrtohTX 2/fnsngYcPKM7uigHTbIQU+mZaRx7bTOXsGX3Ulk+2+a5ewLp+LQz6NFR4CjYuMad9WB oZhELoh9YCUewOIMcO9qaPvQJ5ofPWkkafEtQ3Sm99ArX71Z07qm+s36W2ySqXQWRVcc 5rT/J9r/1g/6uPM+S18fVvPhas4Wt/fDSwV+CaD8VSB4y8bJcuv6ZOJmrEtdq34QvS+1 t48Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=eO2B6Txc7vhsiog1btByufT1HfozpETTnB8Dd4MpoIo=; b=iorSEBG/klPwWKcmc07cOlInYfLf2aOiiL7/ZF+6o2mreJ2AzcY1JAErBQw0AjRqlT Qm7ClnUg5JcPEnYopea9sNYkegK9prDbARxBqjD4oSwZ1LVql1YO0LpFQxQbK/1s7IBV 6lgBN3B7tUJ7pf/gOSeA6VHDnm62qBRsUE4yCbXDUfijY+WR1Tag1I98uBqiI3lCMWcd IXyCQiIZwc0J59tJQPjhXKn/PLVEumoCylA3A7yuxoZQvSE0bI0yw/OMvKXz8nx4/zjz o+Club8Hj3runUXtlSLvEDo4J2Galktz5lif18jjQU5crPcs/syvhBDuavUYhxlvIyuy WtAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo32FAQFrDjpOCDIwdCyQr8HKbHWD/lWObik42+pFtpNNQl9nYSJ jhaVTiLqhN63Ujg6poT6NbtKuihlsCIE7rluMkM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4DmGip20wvdUFndn2zufb+NDJauNqCYrAiw+11WcAK4HgeyZThUKGhSJkh+Ag4YnY3LhaEj9mQshBlW1s/wA0=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9ac2:0:b0:67b:5c87:609b with SMTP id t2-20020a259ac2000000b0067b5c87609bmr20149592ybo.550.1660744734205; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <FDBC91A1-BAB9-4753-93CD-B5C507C74F33@verisign.com> <0A3432EB-AD47-4340-894E-9ABF9A2A8E04@go.tuat.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <0A3432EB-AD47-4340-894E-9ABF9A2A8E04@go.tuat.ac.jp>
From: Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 15:58:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CADqLbzKQo79jmRC4VoKuULH91qzDcwQ6WGzkP1cMO2vmCc=NSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Takahiro NEMOTO <nemo@go.tuat.ac.jp>
Cc: "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f1ea8705e6704385"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/BBDRSa3NPSfJopEi2TCMAojKUFg>
Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:59:04 -0000

Dear colleagues,

The sentences in question are removed.
Many thanks for your thoroughness and patience!

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:46 PM Takahiro NEMOTO <nemo@go.tuat.ac.jp> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Sorry I couldn't reply sooner.
> I have checked the update in -14 and future changes.
> I agree to remove the sentence in section 5.3.2. This change will make
> Section 5.3.2 clear. I've also confirmed that the link in section 8 had
> been corrected to the link Marc suggested. I have also agreed to fix the
> typo.
>
> I'm concerned about John's comments (I saw them on the Gen-ART archive as
> well as here), but I'm sure you will reflect my feedback here in the next
> update for the time being.
>
> Regards,
> Nemo
>
> > 2022/07/28 22:19、Gould, James <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org
> >のメール:
> >
> > Takahiro,
> >
> > I wanted to follow-up with the feedback that you’ve provided.  For the
> first minor issue, the proposal for “alternate ASCII address” in the
> message (
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ljIoGJtWaiLv8gw4SsSQVOs0xsM/
> ) is to remove the statements from section 5.3.2 since they are associated
> with registrar (client) policy.  For your second minor issue, Dimtry made
> an update to Section 8 “Security Considerations” in
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-13 based on your feedback.  I do notice a
> “allow:ed” typo that will be addressed.
> >
> > Does this address your feedback, and do you have any additional
> feedback?
> >
> > --
> >
> > JG
> >
> > <image001.png>
> >
> > James Gould
> > Fellow Engineer
> > jgould@Verisign.com
> >
> > 703-948-3271
> > 12061 Bluemont Way
> > Reston, VA 20190
> >
> > Verisign.com
> >
> > From: Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit@gmail.com>
> > Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:49 PM
> > To: Takahiro Nemoto <nemo@go.tuat.ac.jp>
> > Cc: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <
> last-call@ietf.org>, regext <regext@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Artart last call review of
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12
> > Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
> > Resent-To: <galvin@elistx.com>, <beldmit@gmail.com>, <
> francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com>,
> James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, <superuser@gmail.com>, <ietf@antoin.nl>
> > Resent-Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:49 PM
> >
> > Dear Takahiro,
> >
> > Many thanks for your review!
> >
> > I will update the draft in the middle of the next week according to your
> guidelines (with Marc's amendment)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:32 PM Takahiro Nemoto via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >> Reviewer: Takahiro Nemoto
> >> Review result: Ready with Issues
> >>
> >> I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft.
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> I think this document is concise and generally good, but a few things
> are not
> >> explained well enough. Please consider revising the following points.
> >>
> >> Minor issues:
> >> - It is unclear how to provide "alternative ASCII addresses" in Section
> 5.3.2
> >> and how to distinguish between an EAI address and an alternative ASCII
> address,
> >> so it would be better to add an explanation.
> >>
> >> - It is unclear how to verify the code points of domain names in
> Section 8, so
> >> it would be better to add an explanation. RFC5892 describes how to
> determine
> >> the code points that can be used in IDNA2008 but does not describe how
> to
> >> validate domain name code points. So it would be easier to convey the
> intention
> >> to the reader to write "validate whether the domain name consists of
> the code
> >> points allowed by IDNA2008" rather than just writing "validate all code
> points
> >> in the domain name according to IDNA2008". Also, if the validation
> described in
> >> this section is intended to be compared to the code points listed in
> Appendix
> >> B.1. of RFC 5892, it would be better to refer to IDNA Rules and Derived
> >> Property Values
> >> <
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables-12.0.0/idna-tables-12.0.0.xhtml
> >
> >> listing the latest IDNA Derived Property Values.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
> > _______________________________________________
> > art mailing list
> > art@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>
>

-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky