Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 06 September 2019 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DC3120DEE; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYGWXvTqjGHe; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (mail-io1-f52.google.com [209.85.166.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F479120DE6; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id f12so15837990iog.12; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NKsAp+2M0MsyTp2EwBMJvOZWhPU5a62tpTGWLB8Lweg=; b=iI7q5b45syBj9nTnDrjH52qD55vBz/Cxeur19PJLp/4w7uaWdySbaB3JSEjD5rBzL4 j0O5bsbvACu01BJfvmKmz7/WUY9+8gkQk7hPmmd/fcNIB/8OhQVuKGh+QdyMhKkHt+TB H0Hh1rIO3vryMl0LAGzF0eYc6fK3s3k/UWh6PfRjYF6ArEZquh8+0ldKrDg1qzQhccAr iMsff4pxXMue4St3gisqGlAQX+NUzM0fVpaDIQXn0AL+Kbv46GjnyK+1CxpbTqwSj+2X eFTlqW6AunSMseHFnipUAnAl6UM3n/q72epEx9gjfsKBOsEqJV8vj8GvbFNjZc5YEnP3 9YUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXN489F3aQzGiI2JQtusvAjWLUBSp3M46ybdlH0STGySbxQ+osh 3penbdUcqI/hSk2J48xWByjhBU7QQUwBFh6ifhw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqycZ5zVURIzLN+7PTDF+jDwVm8zraJYa4XW404wHvwQqJkCCzkH1OYqnJn/pAZ+cSxch9KMGXhjv99PwBz1e/s=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7709:: with SMTP id n9mr7031588iom.187.1567803741289; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156214026874.14820.1075097887450900352@ietfa.amsl.com> <BL0PR02MB54912CA450A52572739D5AD7B1BA0@BL0PR02MB5491.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR02MB54912CA450A52572739D5AD7B1BA0@BL0PR02MB5491.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 17:02:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKvqj5_12kAi6P1RZwKD=TKv7JK0vqwvnW2jcf-uUKU1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16
To: Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>
Cc: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees.all@ietf.org>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/r043cMW4uSaUnY57PAwOrXGxsZY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 21:02:24 -0000

Thanks for making the updates, Roger.  I do have an issue with the
change to "non-negative" in Section 3.4:

> 4. S3.4. Does this text imply there is no zero fee or credit possible? Might be useful to explicitly
> set guidance for the use of 0/null fee/credit.
>
>    A <fee:fee> element MUST
>    have a non-negative value.  A <fee:credit> element MUST have a
>    negative value.
>
> [RDC] This was discussed in another email but for completeness, this does state fee can be zero (a non-negative value).

Indeed, it was discussed, and the thing is that the text change is wrong:

New text:
   A <fee:fee> element MUST
   have a zero or non-negative value.  A <fee:credit> element MUST have
   a zero or negative value.

1. "Non-negative" already includes zero.  It does.  So "zero or
non-negative" is redundant and sounds silly.  But it's not wrong, so
if you really want that I'm not going to object further.  But...

2. By adding "zero or" to the credit part, you have changed the
meaning.  The original text said that it MUST be negative... so you
can't have a zero credit.  The new text allows that.  Is it really the
intent that a zero credit is permissible?

Barry