[Gen-art] Gen-art LC (and telechat) review for draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 5 Oct 2016
IETF LC End Date: 10 Oct 2016
IESG Telechat date: 13 Oct 2016

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described 
in the review.

Major Issue:

Many of the descriptions describe only side-effects of the status 
instead of the status itself.

All of the descriptions for the new rdap status codes start with "For 
DNR that indicates". This implies that there is a "For not DNR" case 
that's not discussed. I don't think the phrase is necessary and each 
description should look more like the other descriptions already 
registered at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml.

For instance, at 'auto renew period' the document currently says:

"For DNR that indicates if the object is deleted by the registrar during 
this period, the registry provides a credit to the registrar for the 
cost of the auto renewal"

That discusses something (and not the only thing) that can happen while 
the object is in that state. It does not describe the state.

I suggest it should instead say (based on the text in 3915 and the 
current registry entry style):

"The object instance is in a grace period provided between when its 
registration period expires and when its registration is automatically 
renewed by the registry."

I don't think it's important to include the commentary about providing a 
credit if the entity is deleted by the registrar during this period, but 
since that commentary exists in 3915, you can include it if you want. 
The _important_ part to convey is the actual status.

All of the descriptions will need similar attention. Some of them (such 
as clientUpdateProhibited) currently have 2119 words in the description. 
That doesn't make sense - this is a status, not an protocol instruction, 
and trying to put normative language in a registry will lead to 
confusion about where the behavior you are trying to describe is 
actually defined. (To be fair, 5731 has this same problem). Again, I 
suggest following the style that's already in the registry and say 
something like "The client has requested that any requests to update 
this object instance be rejected."


Minor Issues:

You're setting up a minor maintenance headache for any future work that 
might update this document by having the descriptions listed in two 
places. I don't think it's necessary to list the descriptions in section 
2 (currently the bulk of page 4 and the beginning of page 5). Instead, 
stop after the paragraph that ends at the top of page 4, and note that 
the descriptions of each new status code are provided in section 3.

Nits:

Near the end of page 3, the document says "In the DNR, the client and 
server prohibited statuses are separate an RDAP MUST support the same 
separation." There are several nits to address with this. That MUST is 
not a good use of 2119. DNR hasn't been expanded (and "the DNR" is not 
particularly clear).

I suggest you replace that sentence, and the one immediately before it with:

"EPP provides status codes that allow distinguishing the case that an 
action is prohibited because of server policy from the case that an 
action is prohibited because of a client request. The ability to make 
this distinction needs to be preserved in RDAP."