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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gould, James
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:02 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Antoin Verschuren; [e-mail]
> Subject: 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 [[e-mail]] on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott
> [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:18 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
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Oh, I agree that the reference is important. I'm questioning inclusion of a link to an expired draft. Is there another reference, perhaps a document on the ICANN web site?

Scott