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

Scott,

Thank you for the review and feedback.  Your feedback can be addressed in the next update of the draft.  Below I include my embedded comments ("JG: " prefix) to your feedback that I can bring up at the EPPEXT WG meeting.

Thanks,

Jim

________________________________________
From: EppExt [eppext-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott [shollenbeck@verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:18 AM
To: Antoin Verschuren; eppext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for       draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hollenbeck,
> Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:50 AM
> To: Antoin Verschuren; eppext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-
> launchphase
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antoin
> > Verschuren
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:02 PM
> > 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
>
> 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.

JG: The duplicate URI can be removed.  
JG: I believe that the reference is important even with the reference being an expired draft since the concept of “claims”, as supported by the protocol, is covered in the TMCH Functional Specification and not duplicated in the launchphase draft. 

>
> 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.
>

JG: This can be addressed by changing the domain name to “domain.example” instead of “example.tld” throughout the examples.

> Could the authors please confirm that all of the examples are valid per
> the schema that appears in Section 4.1?

JG: Yes, the draft examples are captured in the GitHub project and are validated against the draft schema.  

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.

JG: Yes, this can be addressed

_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
EppExt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext