Re: [Gen-art] [regext] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Tue, 15 October 2019 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8518A12008A; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QvL3cEV5Q1Th; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E8F7120072; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46svQ40FDRz1Y7SS; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1571141420; bh=mGwj1YodqcKEqsluDBuKJq5Clhl1aNR3HdJY/SmhBxY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=aNlys0Z71/0iGNspKS+oANeUaz+nPdjfcax4AsaisRLQXStczZqtPC1PAZ0TmEIBG N1LWboQ2A0YR+4d+JEEc38YcA2UFQKN3KduqOiAn7rR+4T8qLV+xjH6ML51l9PWJkN XHn11QyElyzWzaUQ7nd/Spgs14XF5W2roibyx3/4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46svQ30Fmkz1Y7SN; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jiankang Yao <>
References: <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:10:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [regext] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:10:23 -0000

Regarding the document status, neither of the emails you pointed to 
explains why the document is Informational.  I understand from that and 
other discussions that there is no desire to make this standards track. 
  As has been noted, publication of usages of protocol by small groups 
is normally handled by the Independent Stream.  This document has been 
processed by the working group.

It is very strange for a protocol document to be processed by a working 
group, be accepted as not needing experimental status, and not be 
published as a standards track document.  Reading teh dcouemtn, I see no 
reason for it not to be standards track.

If there is concern that there may be problems with the document, then 
Experimental status would be the normal way to handle this document. 
With an explanation of what the experiment is intended to represent.

If the working group feels there is a good reason for informational 
publication, that should be document somewhere.  It is currently not 
documented in either the document itself or the shepherd report.

The fact that proprietary extensions to EPP are allowed by the protocol 
and registries is irrelevant.  This document is an IETF working group 
product and therefore is not a proprietary extension.

With regard to the "b-dn:" elements of this document, I am now more 
concerned than I was.  I had thought those were a reference to some 
other document that clearly defined the syntax and semantics of those 
elements.  I now understand that the given prefix is used for the new 
elements defined in this document.  The structure that is used to 
describe the expected and permitted content of these elements is qutie 
confusing.  The actual definition is only in the "formal syntax" 
section.  The descriptions are scattered embedded in descriptions of the 
messages, expecting to user to determine the permitted and required 
behavior from informal descriptive text.  Yes, for those who already 
know how it works and what it needs, everything is hear.  For a new 
implementor it is very hard to follow.


PS: Replies to my concerns on the regext list that did not copy any of 
the IETF list, the genart list, or my email address were not seen by me, 
and will not be seen by me if that is chosen again.

On 10/15/2019 3:55 AM, Jiankang Yao wrote:
>> -----原始邮件-----
>> 发件人: "Joel Halpern via Datatracker" <>
>> 发送时间: 2019-10-11 06:56:18 (星期五)
>> 收件人:
>> 抄送:,,
>> 主题: [regext] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>> 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 wait for direction from your
>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <>.
>> Document: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review Date: 2019-10-10
>> IETF LC End Date: None
>> IESG Telechat date: 2019-10-17
> Dear Joel Halpern,
>    Thanks a lot for your kind review.
>> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an RFC.
>> I have received no response to my earlier review.  Some of the items have been
>> addressed, but not all of them.
>> Major issues:
>>      This document clearly defines normative protocol behavior.  As such, it
>>      would seem to either be Experimental or Proposed Standard, but not
>>      Informational.
> Because the WG chair clarified this issue in the mailing list after your review, the WG decided that this document should go to informational. I thought you may be clear about it.
> So I did not directly response to this issue. Sorry about it. Some information about this issue from one of the co-chairs:
>> Minor issues:
>>      The document incorporates items from a name space
>>      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:b-dn", referred to with the prefix "b-dn:".
>>      The only explanation of this meaning is in the terminology section.
>>      However, the description does not indicate what document defines this
>>      information.
> In section 10 "IANA Considerations", the XML namesapce and schema is defined. IANA will add a XML registry for this document at
> IANA is  requested to assignment the two URIs. One is urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:b-dn.
>   So the XML information can be checked on this page.
> I hope that the above information can answer your concerns.
> Thanks a lot.
> Jiankang Yao
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>      I note and appreciate that my comments on the SHOULD usage in section 7.2
>>      has been addressed.
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list