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

Thanks Tommy. So why would, e.g., BBF or OASIS be using PvDs? Sorry if this is obvious.

Alissa

> On Jan 22, 2020, at 12:02 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 