Re: [regext] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your review and comments.

We have added our replies inline below and updated v18 on GitHub (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt <https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt>) accordingly.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best,
Tobias

> On 6. Oct 2021, at 21:29, Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joe Clarke
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> I have been tasked to review this document on behalf of the OPS Area
> Directorate.  This document describes an EPP extension for conveying
> maintenance events to EPP clients.  Overall, I find the document mostly ready,
> but I do have a few questions, and I found a few typos.
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 3.3
> 
> What is the use case for having <maint:start> be equal to <maint:end>?  I would
> think you'd always want the end time to be in the future to be a relevant
> maintenance event.

TS: Good point. Fixed, we removed the part “be equal to".

> 
> ===
> 
> Section 3.3
> 
> s/negotiated value is something other then the/negotiated value is something
> other than the/
> 

TS: Fixed.

> ===
> 
> Section 3.3
> 
> If one of the intervention elements is true, how does one find out the details
> of the connection or implementation-related intervention?  I imagine the URI
> would provide that, but I was expecting to see it stated in this document in
> the description of these elements.

TS: Fixed, we added a reference to <maint:detail> in the description.

> 
> ===
> 
> Section 4.1.4
> 
> s/command and response is defined/command and response are defined/

TS: Fixed.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext