Re: [eppext] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 18 February 2016 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72E51AD080; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:00:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VaOSRA8ucLAF; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBAB01AD070; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:00:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=766; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455807627; x=1457017227; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1vA4wOYc96O8bNYWRg1GgJvWrMvnp6pavm4lrF9z0ac=; b=i+gkNc7WksqhwgtiseLZDm+VVuRkRD8Bo7NhVnlmzao3hleBpxKcWkOh 0EDudL76MXIIo9k0fbfHGP9EjmbJ29HOHQfztArtkK4nX2GetRiPYgcAg QJVcFukcIti7WzVvJvDXr4nTh7J0FnVPkR+ghM1lC8zoxpyyCKFFf0ENU Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DOAQBE28VW/xbLJq1evQWCEwENgWeGD?= =?us-ascii?q?QKCExQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQgEBBCMVQAEQCxoCBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0IAQGIFqx?= =?us-ascii?q?HjwUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARl7hReEO4c1gToBBJcFjVqJIYVSjkceAQFCg?= =?us-ascii?q?i+BNTuJTQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,465,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="649413560"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2016 15:00:25 +0000
Received: from [10.61.83.28] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4893.cisco.com [10.61.83.28]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1IF0Oph011658; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:00:24 GMT
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20160218073918.24465.37734.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJ+2-iqy7p2f=cwBhTot4AaMfXgmSdXjjdqW-gdn0vujnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56C5DC88.9000202@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:00:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+2-iqy7p2f=cwBhTot4AaMfXgmSdXjjdqW-gdn0vujnw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/JaFSWUEILdXe-5WxVGwtSACEuVo>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "nkong@cnnic.cn" <nkong@cnnic.cn>, draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd@ietf.org, eppext-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, eppext <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:00:28 -0000

Hi Barry,

You're right. The comments were for version 3.
All is good now.

Regards, Benoit
>> Specifically the Appendix in the wrong place
> What Appendix?
>
>> Additionally, in Section 2 "Object Description" there are elements for
>> the objects that are marked OPTIONAL or MUST. However, there are many
>> which are not defined either way.  The "assumption" is they are a MUST.
>> If this is true perhaps some text at the beginning of the definitions
>>
>>      "Unless otherwise specified, any element defined is a MUST".
> This second paragraph in Section 2 doesn't cover it?:
>
>     This section defines some elements as OPTIONAL, the elements not
>     defined as OPTIONAL are REQUIRED to be included in the appropriate
>     objects.
>