Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hollenbeck,
> Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:50 AM
> To: Antoin Verschuren; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-
> launchphase
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Antoin
> > Verschuren
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:02 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-
> > launchphase
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > This is the starting of the WGLC on the Launch Phase Mapping for the
> > Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP).
> > There was extensive discussion on the mailing list, an we believe the
> > outcome is incorporated in the
> > document and is ready for WGLC.
> > The current version of this document can be found here:
> >
> >   https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-05.txt
> 
> I have reviewed this document. Comments:
> 
> The URI for the "TMCH Functional Specification" appears twice in the
> list of URIs. One of the instances should be removed and the citations
> should be adjusted accordingly. More importantly, that URI identifies
> an expired Internet-Draft. Is it really the best reference? This isn't
> a normative reference so I don't think it needs to be brought up to
> date for this document to proceed, but I would like to ask if it makes
> sense to refer to expired I-Ds in this way.
> 
> Many of the examples in the document use domain names like
> "example1.tld". These names aren't consistent with RFC 6761.
> Consideration should be given to using 6761 domain names.
> 
> Could the authors please confirm that all of the examples are valid per
> the schema that appears in Section 4.1?

Sorry, one more comment: a template should be added to section 5 to register the XML schema in addition to the namespace. There's an example in RFC 5731.