Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03

[Jody Kolker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the detailed feedback Jim and apologies for the late reply.

Responses are inline.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Jody.

From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:28 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03

Notice: This email is from an external sender.



Hi,



I did a review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance and the following is my feedback:



  1.  Section 1.1 Terminology and Definition

     *   Since the draft has moved to WGLC, this is somewhat a non-applicable point, but the latest practice for EPP extensions has been to use a pointed XML namespace (e.g., “urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:maintenance-0.X”) up until the draft moves to WGLC, when the XML namespace moves to 1.0 (e.g., “urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:maintenance-1.0”).  Using the pointed XML namespace will enable making XML schema changes without impacting existing implementations.  Backward compatibility can be broken based on WG feedback when using the non-pointed XML namespace.



JWK – Thanks for the feedback We will keep in mind for future drafts.  I don’t believe we can change from 1.0 now?



  1.  Section 2.3 Maintenance Elements

     *   I would describe the Maintenance Elements in the description of the info response (section 3.1.3 EPP <info> Command) and then for the poll message, I would reference the use of the info response.  See how the poll messaging is described for the section 2.5 of the Launch Phase Mapping (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8334#section-2.5).





JWK – As the elements are defined in 2.3, a reference was added to section 2.3.  We would like to only display the descriptions to the elements once instead of in both poll and info command sections.



     *   My recommendation is to only define SHOULD for elements that are not required per the XML schema, since some of the SHOULD elements in the description are for required elements in the XML schema.  The other EPP Extension RFCs default to the elements being required, but explicitly define optional elements using the OPTIONAL keyword.



JWK – Agreed and updated.



     *   Should the <maint:detail> element be of type anyURI or is it free-form text?

JWK – Updated to “anyURI”.


     *   The <maint:description> is not defined as a “token” and does not include an optional “lang” element with a default value of “en” like other EPP extensions.

JWK – Updated.


     *   The <maint:tlds> element is required per the XML schema with inclusion of at least one <maint:tld> element, but it’s defined as a SHOULD.

JWK – Updated schema to minOccurs = “0”.


     *   The <maint:intervention> element is required per the XML schema with inclusion of both the <maint:connection> and <main:implementation> boolean elements, but it’s defined as a SHOULD.

JWK – Updated schema.


     *   Does it make sense for <maint:start> and <maint:end> to be required per the XML schema for an inactive maintenance?

JWK – Updated to not be required.


     *   When are inactive maintenances returned?

               i.     I would assume that only active maintenances would be returned in the maintenance list, but when querying for a specific maintenance that has been deleted, can the inactive status be returned?

JWK –  Yes.


             ii.     How long should deleted maintenances be kept around for?

JWK –  These seems like server preference, 12 months may be a good standard.  Would like to hear additional opinions from the list.


           iii.     Wouldn’t it be better to return that the deleted maintenance does not exist instead of having the concept of an active and inactive status?

JWK – Would like more input from the list as the authors and I can see either way.


            iv.     The Change Poll EPP extension (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8590) could be used in combination with the maintenance mapping to address the deletion use case, where the previous version of the maintenance is returned with the change poll reason that the maintenance was deleted.
JWK – Sounds reasonable, should it be described here?  We are agreeable to either way.  Could this be a server option?

     *   The <maint:id> element includes a human readable “msg” attribute, which also means that there is the need for the optional “lang” attribute with a default value of “en”.  The “msg” attribute seems to only apply to the responses and not the command, but the “idType” type is also used for the info command in the “infoType” type.  It would be better to use the “token” type for the <maint:id> element instead of the “normalizedString” type.
JWK – Agreed and updated.

     *   The description of the <maint:system> element needs to be revised.  I don’t believe that the description of <maint:system> needs to say “MUST be present at least once”, since the parent <maint:systems> element already indicates that there MUST be one or more <maint:system> elements.
JWK – We would like to reinforce that the “maint:system: needs to be included.

     *   For the <maint:environment> element, should the “type” attribute and the “name” attribute be placed in double quotes?  Should the “name” attribute be defined as a MUST when using the ‘custom’ type?
JWK – Name attribute updated to a MUST if type is “custom”.   Replaced single quotes with double quotes.

     *   The <main:impact> is an enumerated value of either ‘blackout’ or ‘partial’ in the XML schema, so the SHOULD needs to be a MUST.  I would define what is meant by “blackout” or “partial” impact.  Would the use of “full” be better than “blackout”?
JWK – Replaced blackout with “full” and SHOULD changed to MUST.

     *   The <maint:host> element specifies that it contains <maint:hostname> or <maint:hostAddr>, but the XML schema does not include a choice between the two, but instead requires the <maint:hostname> element and provides the option for the <maint:hostAddr> element.  Should the <maint:hostAddr> element consist of a list of addresses (e.g., set maxOccurs=”unbounded”)?  What is the purpose of the <maint:hostAddr> element and if supported shouldn’t it be a list of host addresses?
JWK – Updated “or” to “and OPTIONAL and updated the host:addr to be unbounded in the schema.

     *   The <maint:hostName> states that it SHALL be Punycode according to [RFC5891], but that would only apply to IDN host names.  I recommend updating the description to support both non-IDN and IDN host names.
JWK – Doesn’t Punycode support both non-IDN and IDN names?


  1.  Section 3.1.3 EPP <info> Command

     *   I would first describe the info command with the info command examples, followed by describing the info response with the info response examples.  The info response is not described and are mixed in with the info command examples.
JWK – Section has been reformatted.

     *   I would break out the <maint:id> info command and response separate from the <maint:list> info command and response either as sub-sections or more explicitly.  An example of the use of sub-sections is defined in the multiple create forms in section 3.3 of the Launch Phase Extension (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8334#section-3.3).  An example of being more explicit is the multiple info command types and responses in section 3.1.2 of the Registry Mapping (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry-04#section-3.1.2).
JWK – Is anyone else having an issue with clarity on this section?  Would like to here more responses from others on the list.

     *   I don’t see a description of the <maint:maint> element contained in the <maint:list> element, which is defined by the “maintItemType” in the XML schema.  The “maintItemType” type contains a subset of the elements defined by the “maintDataType” type in the XML schema.  I would recommend defining the two forms of the maintenance info commands and responses.
JWK – Updated – please review.

  1.  Section 3.1.4 EPP <poll> Command

     *   Revise the language somewhat.  For example, “The poll message applies whenever the domain name registry creates, updates, or deletes a maintenance”.

JWK – Updated.

     *   I would also specify that the poll message is an info response for an individual maintenance change (create, update, or delete).

JWK – Can you provide more information as to what/where this should be placed?

  1.  Section 4.1 Registry Maintenance EPP Mapping Schema

     *   XML schema should be able to define the infoType “list” element as <element name=”list”/> instead of including the <complexType/> sub-element.

JWK - <complexType/> has been removed.

     *   Comment for the idType can be corrected, which currently reads “Human-readable text may be expresses the maintenance”.

JWK – Updated.

     *   The “host:addrType” in the XML Schema is not defined, since the host XML namespace is not imported.  My recommendation is to not create a hard dependency to the host XML schema and simply copy the “addrType”, “addrStringType”, and “ipType”   definitions into the XML schema.  The following elements were added / updated in the XML schema:

<complexType name="systemType">
  <sequence>
    <element name="name" type="token"/>
    <element name="host" type="maint:hostAttrType"/>
    <element name="impact" type="maint:impactEnum"/>
  </sequence>
</complexType>

<complexType name="addrType">
  <simpleContent>
    <extension base="maint:addrStringType">
      <attribute name="ip" type="maint:ipType"
       default="v4"/>
    </extension>
  </simpleContent>
</complexType>

<simpleType name="addrStringType">
  <restriction base="token">
    <minLength value="3"/>
    <maxLength value="45"/>
  </restriction>
</simpleType>

<simpleType name="ipType">
  <restriction base="token">
    <enumeration value="v4"/>
    <enumeration value="v6"/>
  </restriction>
</simpleType>





JWK -  Updated.

--



JG







James Gould

Fellow Engineer

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[e-mail]>



703-948-3271

12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190



Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>



On 10/2/20, 4:57 PM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail][e-mail]>> wrote:



    The following working group document is believed to be ready for

    submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:



    https://secure-web.cisco.com/14WoNaSzKUxwiQvyFtivmhki2NRUkzRYQ7LL4wBCuxotHDT9vwzv8GABAlrm9-cxdSpu6MVB0P4OfGeG4RiXSLDcaJ7CIonnYniQxYMXAoMLNWUnyDKY2UathW7ulM87ls59KsczLcucYAzmCwvDLs73JUgk2FFvB-wMfndbW4axgl6shfqdsgW1QGMqUtCYK1LkxmCfP9jTc53yPQItk8E3InKLboiR4DShC33Yo_OtXZlSoy16RITasjytx4oZ0kxgcKdb0MJqU-K9k2_ZpKA/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance%2F



    This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 16 October

    2020.



    Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1”

    is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by

    replying to this message on the list.



    The document shepherd for this document is James Galvin.



    Regards,



    Antoin and Jim



    _______________________________________________

    regext mailing list

    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    https://secure-web.cisco.com/1DJzCb9ui1hohfJj4BRZEe91VteUi4Ekqzw2TzFZY6cqp3Tzb5UGSpfjZZ9v2x3q4oYQPar_h2ypEbIdNN8-2OSqRu07Ldg03NzaXHCHmPcrCg1d-rjx1w7f32X0K-vxTDuIgeoeY4A12f8iolWIDv1-ifZmOaragpNhE6k5w16dHwdff_WVR6XOWH9Q6xZEbwdj86NyXaZwwFgUkOeHVIF2SVRSKZcOudsWNNPQIXX_V7_K-pLcsArFiPH62utkQtZvbKR5v5eIUIQgXusplTyyHqviyNlaL327kQ8SmME0/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext