Re: [regext] [Ext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Gustavo and other authors to have replied to and acted upon my comments.

The -10 looks perfectly fine!

Good job

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 23:51
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Scott Hollenbeck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: (with COMMENT)

    Thank you Éric,

    Comments below are prefixed with Authors-.

    A new version of the I-D has been published here: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-10.txt

    Regards,
    Gustavo

    On 8/25/20, 11:51, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

        Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
        draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: No Objection

        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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html__;!!PtGJab4!rBU0vO-gjw6Fqrub9N1aq4rKO80xoO9oRs_cFwaPjhrsCZ0c_iYme3h4P_pcFT_5zKddow--MeY$ 
        for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


        The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping/__;!!PtGJab4!rBU0vO-gjw6Fqrub9N1aq4rKO80xoO9oRs_cFwaPjhrsCZ0c_iYme3h4P_pcFT_5zKddtQ4jY8o$ 



        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        COMMENT:
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

        Thank you for the work put into this document. Due to my heavy workload, I did
        not review in details the model itself.

        Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs (a reply to  my COMMENTs
        will be welcome).

        I hope that this helps to improve the document,

        Regards,

        -éric

        == COMMENTS ==

        A generic question about the point (5) of the document shepherd write-up:
        "The AD is asking for further review from the Internationalization
        Directorate, specifically on Section 10, which RECOMMENDS UTF-8 but allows
        UTF-16.  The working group cites RFC 5730, Section 5, and aligns with that.
        The AD would prefer to deprecate UTF-16, and notes that RFC 5730, is now
        well over 10 years old.  Other opinions will be useful."

        Did the WG receive any other opinions ? It is not clear from the write-up.

    Authors- Scott replied here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/kENFq5jLnSGiIn6oeWOjumY1kcQ/

        -- Section 4.3 --
        Just curious here, why are the ASCII code expressed as a 16-bit unit while
        ASCII codes are 7-bit long ? E.g., '("+", ASCII value 0x002B)'

    Authors- fixed in the next version of the I-D.

        -- Section 4.4 --
        Are you sure that CRC32 and SHA-256 belongs to a section named 'checksum' ?
        Those 2 techniques are different than checksums and much stronger for integrity
        checks. Suggest to renamed this section.

    Authors- text updated in the next version of the I-D.

        In addition, should the algorithm be identified ?

    Authors- text updated in the next version of the I-D.

        -- Section 4.5 --
        RFC 4291 is about the addressing structure of IPv6 (i.e., semantic), please
        replace this reference to RFC 5952 that is about how to write an IPv6 address
        (i.e., syntax).

    Authors- fixed in the next version of the I-D.

        -- Section 4.6.1 --
        Just curious again... why not using plain SQL data definition language 'create
        table()' statements rather than using XML to describe relational tables? Of
        course, the XML file contains other information than the SQL data definition
        language but it is lacking some information from SQL.

        Also, it seems that using XML rather than SQL forces the primary key and
        foreign key to have the same name (e.g., <csvSample:fName/>)

    Authors- XML is used to match the type definitions used the related provisioning protocol, which is EPP (RFC 5730 – 5733).  In this case the elements provided over the provisioning protocol can be directly used in the data escrow.

        -- Section 5.3.2.1.3 --
        Should the postal ZIP code be included ?

    Authors- the postal code is supported with the <csvContact:fPc/> field with CSV and the <contact:pc> element with XML.

        == NITS ==

        -- Section 5.1.1.1 --
        Really cosmetic, but, having an expiration date in 2015 in the example in a
        document published in 2020 ;-)

    Authors- fixed in the next version of the I-D.