Re: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: (with COMMENT)

"Linlin Zhou" <> Thu, 25 October 2018 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A947D12D4E6; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcU4aic5OCUJ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF06E12D7EA; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zll (unknown []) by (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0BJUPACXtFbNmYCAA--.2924S2; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:09:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:10:13 +0800
From: "Linlin Zhou" <>
To: ben <>, iesg <>
Cc: regext-chairs <>, "Pieter Vandepitte" <>, regext <>, draft-ietf-regext-org-ext <>
References: <>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 5, 136[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart403071031102_=----"
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7ArW3Jr47Cry7KrWrJF4rAFb_yoW8Kr1DpF 43Ja1xGw4DJr1xJw10k3W8A34j9ryfJrWUAFy3Xr1vyFW5ArnrtF1YyF1rAFyUWryrXr1U Xr1UGr98Kr1UArJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUHIb7Iv0xC_Zr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Cr1j6rxdM28EF7xvwV C2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40En4AK xVAvwIkv4cxYr24l5I8CrVCF0I0E4I0vr24l5I8CrVC2j2CEjI02ccxYII8I67AEr4CY67 k08wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCj c4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAYjx AxZF0Ex2IqxwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41lc2xSY4AK67AK6r47MxAIw28IcxkI7VAK I48JMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx2IqxVCjr7 xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUAVWUtwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xII jxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw2 0EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF 7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJwCE64xvF2IEb7IF0Fy7YxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jVsjbUUU UU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: p2kr3zplqox0w6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:09:22 -0000

Dear Ben,
Thank you for your review. Please see my feedbacks below with [Linlin].


Linlin Zhou
From: Ben Campbell
Date: 2018-10-24 06:00
To: The IESG
CC: regext-chairs; pieter.vandepitte; regext; draft-ietf-regext-org-ext
Subject: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
Thanks for the work on this. I have a few comments:
*** Substantive Comments ***
§1: "An organization mapping object defined in [ID.draft-ietf-regext-org]
SHOULD be created first."
First before what?
[Linlin] I noticed that Benjamin had the same comment. So I suggest changing some words here, "Organization object identifiers MUST be known to the server before the organization object can be associated with the EPP object.".
*** Editorial Comments ***
- General:
I'm a little confused by the split in material between draft-ietf-regext-org
and draft-ietf-regext-org-ext, especially how the command mapping and related
info seems to span both documents. It seems a bit reader-unfriendly. But it's
late enough in the process that it's probably not worth changing.
[Linlin] Please see my feedback in the "org" draft.
- Abstract: Please expand EPP on first mention both in the abstract and in the
[Linlin] Yes.
§2, 3rd paragraph:  I know we are not consistent about this, but I find the
word “conforming” to be a red flag. Standards track RFCs should be about
interoperability, not conformance. I suggest striking all after “presented”.
[Linlin] OK.
regext mailing list