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 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?

Scott