Re: [regext] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00

Jasdip Singh <> Thu, 11 June 2020 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925663A07D1 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Spt83sjHVO2H for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:500:110:201::51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 087E93A07C8 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD0B010757B4; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:32:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:32:45 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::51fb:9cc2:1f9a:288b]) by ([fe80::988:2227:cf44:809%17]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:32:45 -0400
From: Jasdip Singh <>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00
Thread-Index: AQHWQBo6XHm9Z87/YkqQSUV1lR8O8KjUAlQAgAAOrQA=
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:32:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3110B389CAB749ABBF106CFC95B09FBDarinnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00
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, 11 Jun 2020 19:32:50 -0000

Yah, those missing links could be because of the HTML version of the doc. Please ignore that.


On Jun 11, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott <<>> wrote:

From: regext <<>> On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:01 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00

Hello Scott.

While doing the shepherd writeup, noted few minor things which may help polish the doc further.

  *   5.5: Add “The” to the "Autonomous System Number Object Class” section title to be consistent with others.


  *   1, 5, 5.4, 5.5, 7, 8: Looks like the [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis] reference needs the correct link. Additionally, in section 8, [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis] has no link.

[SAH] I don’t see the issue, Jasdip. I see references to [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis], which is correct. The reference includes the correct URL, too. What’s missing?
There is a potential  issue with references to 7482bis due to a limitation with xml2rfc. The two documents reference each other, and as soon as you update one the bibliography that xml2rfc uses to manage references gets outdated. I have to edit the final text file manually to make this fix.

  *   1.1: Is the trailing period intended for member, object, and object class definitions?

[SAH] I think those are just editorial artifacts that can be removed for consistency.

  *   2.1: Should lunarNic prefix in the fields match the casing of the lunarNIC prefix for the extension in 4.1? I know there was some discussion on this but not sure if they are orthogonal or not.

[SAH] They should probably be consistent to avoid questions just like this one 😊

  *   4.5: Looks like extraneous trailing period for eventDate description.

[SAH] I can remove that.

  *   5.3: Does the description of the network member need a trailing period?

[SAH] Probably note, since the other descriptions don’t use a trailing period.

  *   5.5: "high-level structure of the autnum object class consists of information about the network registration” - should “network” be changed to "autonomous system number”?

[SAH] Yes.

  *   Should phrase “registry unique” be “registry-unique” to be consistent?

[SAH] Yes.

  *   13.2: [RFC7480] needs a link.

[SAH] What link? The reference in the text looks appropriate. If you’re looking at an HTML version of the document and there’s a problem with a missing link, that’s a bug in the tools that generate the HTML version of the document.

  *   Typo “referencce” in the Changes from RFC 7483 section. Also, “00:” used twice in the list.

[SAH] 00 is used twice because there’s been both a -00 version of the individual submission and a -00 version of the working group version. I’ll fix the typo.  Thanks for the feedback!