[regext] Fwd: Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Sun, 25 October 2020 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
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 9C2873A0B26 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 KbH8bVe7CtG3 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx5.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0283A0B29 for <regext@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D73BC0600 for <regext@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:47:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx5.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HxOu3PkUfMb for <regext@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:47:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D0BCC047B for <regext@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:47:29 +0100 (CET)
References: <6d049562-4008-87fa-26dd-bd3734cef732@iit.cnr.it>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <6d049562-4008-87fa-26dd-bd3734cef732@iit.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <f2a4d81f-2f14-ca55-f81f-27bdbd655038@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:44:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6d049562-4008-87fa-26dd-bd3734cef732@iit.cnr.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6DE87F9EF56A0E708C61B3D6"
Content-Language: it
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Xz8OZpR3AQ6oL3Byme__5c5jK6I>
Subject: [regext] Fwd: Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:38 -0000

Hi authors,

I provided feedback but I haven't received any response yet, but never mind.

I note that both the points were addressed by either version 04 or the 
reply to James's feedback.

Best,

Mario


-------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Oggetto: 	Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: 
draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03
Data: 	Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:54:32 +0200
Mittente: 	Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
A: 	James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>om>, regext@ietf.org



Hi all,

I have a couple of comments about this document:

1) Don't understand which maintenance notifications should be returned  
by an info command including the <maint:list/> element. I mean, only 
those about both ongoing and future events or also about past events? In 
the latter case,  could it be helpful to add optional attributes to the 
<maint:list/> element which allow clients to specifiy a preferred time 
interval?  For example, "createdAfter" and "createdBefore".

2) The document makes no assumption on which <maint:maint> child 
elements should be presented in the response to an info request 
including the <maint:list/> element. However, the example in section 
3.1.3 seems to suggest that servers should return a subset of the full 
information. Should the document define the minimum information which 
servers are required to provide and clients could expect?

Best,

Mario


Il 02/10/2020 22:57, James Galvin ha scritto:
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for 
> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/ 
>
>
> This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 16 October 2020.
>
> Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” 
> is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by 
> replying to this message on the list.
>
> The document shepherd for this document is James Galvin.
>
> Regards,
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

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