Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07
"Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> Mon, 30 July 2018 06:21 UTC
Return-Path: <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F49130DFA for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kIjzaRf9KcAn for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64AB8130E33 for <regext@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Admin-THINK (unknown [218.241.103.128]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0Dp8Pxarl5bmnQCAA--.1778S2; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:21:16 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:21:14 +0800
From: Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, draft-ietf-regext-org-ext <draft-ietf-regext-org-ext@tools.ietf.org>, regext <regext@ietf.org>
References: <c33925d0-eff9-62f2-2975-49cd413f4ebb@nostrum.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: E2F8231D-3794-4E0C-B45D-CCA55A258B09
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 21[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <20180730142111887503210@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart787736684650_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0Dp8Pxarl5bmnQCAA--.1778S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW3Gry7Aw45ury5WFy7KFW3ZFb_yoW3Gr4Upr nxJ34xKr18Ary7Jw17Ar1Utw1UAr1kJrWUJF1rXw10yrn8Ar18tr15t3WrAFWUGryrZr1U Xr1UKr15Gr1UA3DanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUmEb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW0oVCq3wA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_GcCE3s1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG62kEwI0E Y4vaYxAvb48xMc02F40E42I26xC2a48xMc02F40Ex7xS67I2xxkvbII20VAFz48EcVAYj2 1lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkE bVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvY0x0EwIxGrwACY4xI67k04243AVAKzVAKj4xxM4xvF2IEb7IF0F y26I8I3I1lc2xSY4AK67AK6r47MxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j 6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7 AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE 2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42 IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMVCEFcxC0VAY jxAxZFUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU5RuWtUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: p2kr3zplqox0w6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/5k2zgb1xlQ88aT_iDSjfsRk2-_I>
Subject: Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 06:21:31 -0000
Dear Adam, Thanks for your review. I have my feedbacks started with [Linlin]. I'll update the draft based on your comments. Regards, Linlin zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn From: Adam Roach Date: 2018-07-28 07:04 To: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext; regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07 This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07. I have a handful of comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to consider the document. Please treat them as you would any other last-call comments. There are also two blocking comments that need to be resolved prior to IETF last call. Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a blocking comment. This document raises the same question as draft-ietf-regext-org-08 does regarding the allowable placement of XML namespace declarations within the document; see, e.g., the following text: > In addition to the EPP command elements > described in the EPP object extensions, the command MUST contain an > <extension> element, and the <extension> element MUST contain a child > <orgext:create> element that identifies the extension namespace if > the client wants to associate data defined in this extension to the > object. I presume the same answer will apply to this document as does to draft-ietf-regext-org-08. Affected elements appear to also include <orgext:update> and <orgext:infData>. [Linlin] Please see my feedback in the reply of org draft. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a blocking comment, as it impacts interoperability. §4.2.5: This section defines remove and change elements that use "role" as a key. It is unclear whether an attempt to remove or change an identifier corresponding to a role that is not present in the object results in an error, or is treated as success. For example, if an "example.com" is currently in the system as a reseller, but is *not* in the system as a privacyproxy, would an update containing the following elements return a success response or an error response? C: <orgext:update C: xmlns:orgext="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:orgext-1.0"> C: <orgext:rem> C: <orgext:id role="privacyproxy"/> C: </orgext:rem> C: </orgext:update> If the answer is that an error is returned, then that error needs to be clearly specified in this document. [Linlin]I think an error should be returned. The same question needs to be answered for <orgext:chg>. Additionally: if no error is returned, then behavior for <orgext:chg> needs to clearly spell out whether attempts to update a role that is not already present in the object causes that role to be added, or if the object remains unchanged. [Linlin] Originally, there is a response example for <update>. But the WG thought that the example is exactly the same with RFC 5731, so it was removed. The exmaple is, When an <update> command has been processed successfully, a server MUST respond with an EPP response with no <resData> element. Example <update> response: S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"> S: <response> S: <result code="1000"> S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg> S: </result> S: <trID> S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID> S: </trID> S: </response> S:</epp> Similarly, if <orgext:add> is issued for a role that already exists in the object, does this result in an error, or is the existing role identifier silently overridden? If the answer to "is this an error" is "yes" for any or all of the preceding questions: this document needs to clearly spell out what happens when an <orgext:...> element contains multiple <orgext:id> elements, and *some* of them cause an error while *some* of them do not. If this is the case, my strong recommendation is to specify that operations are atomic (that is, they either succeed completely or make no state change whatsoever). Finally, if the <orgext:add> and <orgext:chg> elements do not result in errors in the cases described above, then this document should clearly specify how processing is different between those two elements, or clearly specify that handling of both elements is identical. [Linlin] So is it ok to add some words like "An EPP error response MUST be returned if an <update> command cannot be processed for any reason." ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Copyright Notice" section: > This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF > Contributions published or made publicly available before November > 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this > material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow > modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. This is typically only true of revisions of older documents, which necessarily obsolete published RFCs. So, to double-check: is this the correct boilerplate for this document? [Linlin] This paragraph will be removed. =========================================================================== The remaining comments on this document are minor and editorial. §1: > In the business model of domain registration, we usually have 3 roles > of entities, a registrant, a registrar and a registry. "...of entities: a registrant,..." ^ > operators, privacy proxy, etc. "...proxies..." > A domain reseller is an individual or a company that acts as a agent "...an agent..." [Linlin] OK. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Please update this boilerplate to match RFC 8174. [Linlin]Yes. This section will be updated to match RFC 8174. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2: > white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element > relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this specification. This isn't really how RFC-2119-defined terms are intended to be used. Suggest changing "REQUIRED" to lowercase. [Linlin] Yes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2: > orgext-1.0 in this document is used as an abbreviation for > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:orgext-1.0. I can't find where this abbreviation is used. I suggest removing this sentence. [Linlin] OK, I'll remove this sentence. I think there is the same issue in org draft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.1.2: > This extension does not add any element to the EPP <info> command "...elements..." > o Zero or more <orgext:id> elements are allowed that contains the "...contain..." [Linlin] OK. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.2.5: > At least one and only one <orgext:add>, <orgext:rem> or <orgext:chg> > element MUST be provided. This is kind of an odd phrasing that may confuse readers. I think what's meant here is "Exactly one of <orgext:add>..." -- if so, please change the description to be more straightforward. [Linlin] Yes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.2.5: > o One or more <orgext:id> elements that contains the identifier of "...that contain..." [Linlin] OK. _____________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
- [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07 Adam Roach
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Linlin Zhou
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Adam Roach
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Linlin Zhou
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Linlin Zhou
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Linlin Zhou
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Linlin Zhou
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Adam Roach
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Pieter Vandepitte
- Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext… Linlin Zhou