Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Jiankang.

On one point only:

>> The SecDir review suggested changing the contact for the IANA
>> registrations to the IETF, rather than the authors, and I agree: it
>> should be “the IETF”, probably with the regext mailing list as the
>> contact information.  You did not make any change.  Please do.
>>
>> You also did not address my comment about needing an explanation for
>> why this is Informational and not Proposed Standard.  It’s fine for it
>> to be Informational, but the shepherd writeup needs to explain why
>> (please update it), and the Introduction probably should also,
>> assuming that reason has to do with the deployment, applicability, or
>> maturity of what’s documented here.
>
> Yao:  In the section "IANA Considerations" , we will add the following sentence
>
> " This document describes a non-standard EPP
> extension, so that the registrant contact will use author's address under the REGEXT WG's guidance."

I don't think that's where you should put it, and at this point I
don't think you need to make any change to the IANA Considerations.
As I said in my note in response to you and Antoin:

> The explanation that
> this is a proprietary extension and where it comes from needs to be in
> the Introduction (early in the Introduction).  I would also mention it
> in the abstract (change "This document describes an extension" to
> something like, "This document describes a non-standard proprietary
> extension").

In addition to the change I suggest above to the Abstract, I would
like to see a change to this paragraph in the Introduction:

   In order to meet the above requirements of strict bundled name
   registration, this document describes an extension of the EPP domain
   name mapping [RFC5731] for the provisioning and management of bundled
   names.

To start with, I'd like it to say "describes a non-standard
proprietary extension".  But then I'd like to see another sentence
after what's above, which says a little more about where the
proprietary extension comes from, and a work about its deployment (is
it limited to certain environments, certain companies, certain
registries/registrars, certain countries?).

This should be easy: we're only talking about a few sentences.

Barry