Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-06: (with COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

Please see inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gould, James <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 19 April 2021 15:52
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; regext-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-secure-
> authinfo-transfer-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Thank you for your review and feedback.  I provide responses to your
> feedback embedded below.
> 
> --
> 
> JG
> 
> 
> 
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> [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 4/19/21, 7:57 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>     Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-06: 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://secure-
> web.cisco.com/1nRJLRUiDha_wZnJfplBfW_pNR-
> Lw2xsv9qMMvatXWM3grB7zxr0vzxD0wFabNBjuWMawi8MSGohvoADlPx1luGJbH3vcnfYlia21
> So3k4RQWhOHzpjz6fGyDooK4AvwdPkg_1StQ_SQ1RdG0jK21rlCoY0tYim3vJcKfKjai0-
> 12IC-P22F_w_JYt-GJxxgcH6bpU03vRvPp_If8O1a1-
> zuYTlTQDqMBRy6nyw5QqFA0znDRnkYtP4HTW3SlMD-
> C/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html
>     for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rxr6X1OLj6yHWwZC-
> H4jTllgY_zX38cAQ0vMpclzgy1DMDjJs0nEThOO9aqx3f8nku40mR9XpzB1drPdbDe8orN31fB
> mSJquUXXjrwS6SJCWCyiZEHhf1jbEb1PzB0VLVzPLZn-
> lYpRt5fYSuB_vJWIKdd84JVnJlqF5VMEx8tG5nQPmSN0S4-NWF--
> scEabNqkCv2uJwvCKWEmUmANnztp_Fzlg5V_Ng5VEmO9RBN3r9xx30EB0UDiE8rOPG_1K/http
> s%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-
> transfer%2F
> 
> 
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     Thanks for this document.
> 
>     I found it hard to understand what is actually being transferred in
> the
>     title/abstract.  Perhaps this could be expanded a little to help
> readers who
>     are not familiar with EPP.
> 
> JG - EPP supports an extensible set of objects that can be transferred
> between registrars, but the most important object defined is domain names.
> How about extending the first sentence to provide a little bit more
> clarity as in "The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), in RFC 5730,
> defines the use of authorization information to authorize a transfer of an
> EPP object, such as a domain name, between clients that are referred to as
> registrars".  Providing what is being transferred and between whom may
> help things out.  Do you agree and do you have any recommendations to help
> non-EPP readers?   This could be updated in the abstract and the
> introduction.
[RW] 

Yes, I think that would be sufficient clarification.  Hopefully it will help folks understand what topic this document is broadly addressing.


> 
>     I don't feel particularly strongly on this point, but when reviewing
> this
>     document, I was wondering whether this document wouldn't be better
> published as
>     informational rather than stds track, given that it seems to describe
> an
>     operational practice of how an existing protocol (EPP) should be used.
> 
> JG - The working group had a thorough discussion around the track of the
> draft, which started out a BCP and moved to standards track.  The practice
> is relevant to the protocol, which does include signaling by the client
> and the server with defined behavior expectations, so standards track is
> the appropriate track.
[RW] 

Thanks for the explanation and extra background information.  No objection from me.

Regards,
Rob



> 
>     Regards,
>     Rob
> 
> 
>