Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Alissa,

Thanks very much for the review! I'm keeping pending changes available here, to be published after the telechat: https://github.com/IPv6-mPvD/mpvd-ietf-drafts/pull/25

I've updated the URN reference to specify the correct URL; that was due to my errors in filling out the RFC markdown correctly! I've also updated the text that makes the reference to be clearer in intent:

If a set of PvD Additional Information keys
are defined by an organization that has a Formal URN Namespace {{URN}},
the URN namespace SHOULD be used rather than the "vendor-*" format.

The unnecessary MAY has been removed, and the sentence now reads:

If the HTTP status of
the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the response is expected to
be a single JSON object.

I've also changed "privacy address" to "temporary address" as suggested.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-10: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is a nit that should be easy to resolve but I'm confused by it, so I'm
> flagging it here. The reference for [URN] in Section 10.2 says '[URN] "URN
> Namespaces", n.d..,' which seems like an error. Given the way [URN] is used in
> 4.3, I'm not sure I understand why organizations with formal URN namespaces
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1>
> would be expected to be using PvDs, if that is what the document intends to
> convey. In any event, at a minimum the reference needs to be fixed.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> = Section 4.1 =
> 
> "If the HTTP
>   status of the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the host MAY
>   get a file containing a single JSON object."
> 
> This seems like a misuse of normative MAY, as the behavior is determined by the
> sending server, not the host.
> 
> = Section 7 =
> 
> s/IPv6 Privacy Address/IPv6 temporary address/
> (to align with RFC 7721 terminology)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area