[regext] Re: [Ext] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-15

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Gavin



On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:46 AM Gavin Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> On 31 Jul 2024, at 16:35, Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
>
> Review result: Ready
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs.
> For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir
>
> Status:  Minor Nit, Ready to go
>
> I reviewed this document earlier from a request on the regext list, and
> sent some minor feedback which the Author has incorporated into the
> current version.
>
> I like and approve of the section on Operational Considerations.
>
> ## NIT of question
>
> The Nit tool popped these out:
>
>  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7451
>
>  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'XSD-DATATYPES'
>
> Now 7451 seems to be referenced informally by most documents, including
> most
> mapping additions https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7451/referencedby/
>
>
> I will fix this in my working copy.
>

thanks

I have no opinions currently on the XSD-DATATYPES reference.
>
>
> Without this reference, this document would still have transitive
> normative reference to XSD-DATATYPES as RFC 5730 also has it as a normative
> reference. So I think the reference should be normative but am open to an
> argument to make it informative.
>

I think it should be normative also, and was thinking the same thing.  I
only flagged as the nits tool did as more of something for the document
shepherd to make a note of - it's been discussed and the WG feels this is
correct.

## worthless NIT
>
> In running one of my grammart thingies on the text it complained about
> this in
> Section 10.12 of the change log
>
>    Add *the the* Verisign EPP SDK to Section 9
>
>
> This section will be removed when the document gets published as an RFC,
> but I will fix it anyway :)
>

I knew/know it would be removed and I must apologize for being so pedantic.

tim