Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

"Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> Tue, 30 March 2021 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
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 D549E3A0CB1 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:30:47 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 MBcsYpTdfZ4I for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx5a.knipp.de (kmx5a.knipp.de [195.253.6.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89A1D3A0CAF for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx5a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8nLf5rmHz4vDV for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:30:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dhcp220.intra.dtm.knipp.de (dhcp220.intra.dtm.knipp.de [195.253.2.220]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C124712D7 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:30:32 +0200 (MESZ)
To: regext@ietf.org
References: <08C180EC-A760-4A13-B4DA-C2AD21BB8E91@antoin.nl>
From: "Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
Message-ID: <74329738-8bbf-1629-db2d-215be9760814@knipp.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:30:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <08C180EC-A760-4A13-B4DA-C2AD21BB8E91@antoin.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Rspamd-Server: v1117
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4F8nLf5rmHz4vDV
Authentication-Results: kmx5a.knipp.de; none
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:195.253.0.0/16, country:DE]; LOCAL_WL_IP(0.00)[195.253.2.54]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/pUbjjtPBAeOTOirQiGXIE5KVVTs>
Subject: Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance
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: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:30:48 -0000

Hello,

On 3/29/21 14:49, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

> 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/
> 
> EXTRA ATTENTION: This is the second WGLC for this document. During the first WGLC, there were still some substantial comments to be addressed, and there was not enough positive feedback to declare consensus on this document. Let’s do better this time and please take the time to 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. Since we have 3 authors, we need more reviewers to state support!

I reviewed the document and have one comment/question in addition to what
Michael mentioned in his previous e-mail:

Section 4.1.4.  EPP <poll> Command, says:

  "For the Registry Maintenance Notification, there are three types of
   poll messages, defined by the <maint:pollType> element in Section
   3.3. A poll message applies when a maintenance is created, updated,
   or deleted."

This may be an intentional omission, but in my opinion this should read
"five types of poll messages", and the message type list should include
the "courtesy" and "end" message types, as it doesn't make sense to
define courtesy and end messages while not including them in poll messages.

Otherwise the document seems fine to me, and I support its publication.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund                       E-Mail: support@tango-rs.com
Germany