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

The draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd draft is in "AD evaluation" state, i.e., 
it has already been submitted. Barry will comment on the details of its 
status during the meeting.

What is your response to Rik's suggested change?

Thanks,

Jim

On 11/4/15 3:19 PM, Gould, James wrote:
> Yes, this is stealing my thunder from the meeting, but I agree that they need to be moved up together.  I would actually move these two as well as the smd draft up together.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 3:06 PM, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> wrote:
>>
>> This issue raised by Rik Ribbers has not been addressed by the working group.  Would the authors, and any one from the working group please comment?  Rik's suggestion seems reasonable to me but I would like to see confirmation from the authors.
>>
>> With this suggestion address this document is ready to move forward. However, it is dependent on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-func-spec/, so I'd like to hold it in the working group and submit these two documents together.
>>
>> In addition to the change suggested above, we need a document shepherd to move this forward.  Would anyone like to volunteer?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/21/15 10:28 AM, Rik Ribbers wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I finished the review. There is one issue that I raised earlier that (imho) needs some more clarification in the document.
>>>
>>> See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00585.html
>>>
>>> We have interpreted section 2.3 different then the other implementers with respect to the normal or vanilla (as Alexander suggested) domain check.
>>>
>>> Having fully re-read the draft I am not sure if this issue should be addressed here or in the lozano functional specification
>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec/). However the last is expired and not getting any attention. In this draft there are several requirements concerning Domain Registration, there are no requirements concerning Domain Availability. So if nothing is specified the vanilla domain check can be used.
>>>
>>> However section 2.3 suggest one MUST provide a launchphase...... so what to do....
>>>
>>> My suggestion is to add a few wording (slightly different then my previous proposal):
>>>
>>> ** old **
>>> The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the client to define the target launch phase of the command.
>>>
>>> ** new **
>>> The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the client to define the target launch phase of the command when using this EPP extension.
>>>
>>> Gr,
>>> Rik
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
>>> Sent: maandag 20 juli 2015 22:02
>>> To: eppext@ietf.org
>>> 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
>>>
>>> We'll have a 1,5 week period for comments, closing on Friday, 31 July 2015.
>>>
>>> During last call the chairs are looking for a document shepherd for this document.
>>> If you're interested, please contact the chairs. The document authors can not be the shepherd.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> - --
>>> Antoin Verschuren
>>>
>>> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
>>> M: +31 6 37682392
>>> xmpp:antoinverschuren@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EppExt mailing list
>>> EppExt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
>> EppExt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>>
>