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

"Gould, James" <> Mon, 10 October 2016 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E2C129713 for <>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52Bt_pXmwz7g for <>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::264]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79E9812970E for <>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 12so10657059qtm.3 for <>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=5FPb/k0+0zYboN3jbcIRTx0UxhfOGX7d8dLSh90hWtA=; b=d1UE0y/6UE736/CS55ieC9jm2gkxWHUnLK2L3Y+S0h/USmEKa3o8HNbGX0LLPvQCXR Nq59p4hFA7EurB4F8GLc6IrRabp8chBc2Kr2vpX4FTStAjgmQsCLndH6mKOk5IBb3qVH rMTvpojrK5zDUAhHzLkucdEKaa+B+om3QWAoVAtamlStxBfntzLgHIFyEZI2U1qYuX0z YMFRnozl0XWyuSgOoLfSh0TZm8X05w7yF5vTbNsAnJmly6mhqBGHZOU6eT9BjPrgeFi8 4sahVdYd/5pBoIXuck9PMsnK+A+S+flZW/1keegHVAaiq76E0GjGfhCILrcNqQglZbLX w78A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=5FPb/k0+0zYboN3jbcIRTx0UxhfOGX7d8dLSh90hWtA=; b=DrmD8+aah/FchfHCucXZm1WxqY258puS3VIdN9WREntbcxBxUtkfqGWo84SVY2anA0 o3VXl0vg6YCgprp2eBZrxOXiHluvHPiI6Xm1SvAu1uM22UoZYU/hFtfv+EM0VUvpjQDX BgfK03RJr1PrkcxwPLyw9yrKoqt0VeNAMhOhftJxf1g6moMnZzkyC9p9f7Lu+nduY/go 3dvCDJsKdXwhlPkbVUy4gT5wog08zvf5qPW2ugOVkx47SxxtzkmRf9kdQGAiBSJTJIBA plwu2o+2hnIF1vfMvyGFqKbE5KCMfawpSFHCsHWKrFlhHwVy5fqHIGG3gRzXRN+ToBJj wtYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rlj1fWWAeTTZY1vdCHwHuIwMErGvuAbW2rLXMinaRRdPoFAAZLVnM3Ht8hVW0qRWwSyQYZGoIkq3CB/Bw2BrFqnj8ck
X-Received: by with SMTP id i132mr33929651qke.172.1476113322663; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id n76sm38568439qke.3.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (brn1wnexchm01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u9AFSfB7015368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:28:42 -0400
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:28:39 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-art LC (and telechat) review for draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01
Thread-Index: AQHSH0s0QR2PphM9rkml+sbHfJkdnqCiGmkA
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:28:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3270E702-86E9-488D-9011-B175A7BB7180"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: General Area Review Team <>, "" <>, regext <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC (and telechat) review for draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:28:48 -0000


Thank you for your review and feedback.  I provide responses to your feedback below.



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer <applewebdata://AECD3A2D-1DB8-4EBB-8F64-F11BAFDE30EA/>

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190 <>
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Robert Sparks <> wrote:
> 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
> <>.
> 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
> 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.

The “For DNR that indicates” can be removed from the descriptions.  For example, the "addPeriod = add period; For DRN that indicates if the object is …”  mapping could be "addPeriod = add period; If the object is …”.  The purpose of this draft is to map the statuses defined in EPP and RDAP, so the status descriptions included in the draft where taken from the EPP RFC’s.  There is no intent to redefine the statuses included in the EPP RFC’s in anyway.

> 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."

The clientUpdateProhibited status is defined as:

clientUpdateProhibited = client update prohibited;  For DNR that
       indicates the client requested that requests to update the object
       (other than to remove this status) MUST be rejected.

Where do you see 2119 words in the clientUpdateProhibited description?  The status descriptions were taken from the EPP RFC’s with no intent on changing their meaning.  

> 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.

The desire was for section 2 to stand on its own to define the statuses and the mapping, and for section 3 to be used to register the statuses in registry.  I believe it would be cleaner to duplicate the descriptions in this instance.  

> 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.”

This change will be made.