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

[Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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)