Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03.txt

[Tobias Sattler <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Joseph.

Please see my comments inline.

Additionally, in Section 8.1. some references are missing the DOI reference, such as RFC5732. You can see at the RFC editor the full cite: https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/ref5732.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/ref5732.txt>. There are also some unused and obsolete RFC references in the draft.

Best,
Tobias


> On 13. Jul 2021, at 17:02, Joseph Yee <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tobias,
> 
> Please see comments inline
> 
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 3:04 PM Tobias Sattler <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Joesph,
> 
> Thanks for this update.
> 
> I reviewed the latest version, and have some feedback:
> 
> 
> The header on page 2 and following contains "Abbreviated Title” instead of "Simple Registration Reporting”.
> 
> 
> 1.1.  Requirements Language
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
> 
> I would changed that to the newest version:
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>    "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
>    BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
>    capitals, as shown here.
> 
> Didn't have time to make this changes for -04, will look into it for the next revision
> 
> 
> 
> 2.1.1.  TLD
> 
>    The string of the top level domain involved that MUST be in A-LABEL
>    format as defined by RFC 5890 [RFC5890].
> 
> I would change LABEL from upper to lower case.
> 
> Furthermore, if you write RFC 5890 [RFC5890], this will generate duplicate reference links. Therefore, only [RFC5890] should be enough. This would also apply to all other RFC references in your draft.
> 
> Updated in -04

TS: In 4.1.2.1.2 and 7. I would change LABEL from upper to lower case, too.

>  
> 
> 
> 2.1.3.  Domain
> 
>    This is the domain name in an EPP RFC 5731 [RFC5731] domain object
>    and it SHOULD be in A-Label format.
> 
> I would change it from SHOULD to MUST, and add "as defined by [RFC5890]”.
> 
> 
> Updated 
> 
> 2.1.4.  Transaction_Type
> 
>    The type of transform action made to the domain object (CREATE,
>    DELETE, UPDATE, TRANSFER, RENEW) as specified in RFC 5730 [RFC5730]
>    Section 2.9.3.
> 
> I am not certain with upper case as the RFC is using lower case.
> 
> Checked the RFC and updated to lower case 
> 
> 
> 2.1.6.  DateTime
> 
>    The timestamp of the transaction recorded in the system.  The date
>    and time format follows the "type=dateTime" specification as defined
>    in RFC 5731 [RFC5731].
> 
> I would change it to “Dates and Times MUST be expressed as defined in [RFC5731] Section 2.4."
> 
> Updated 
> 
> 
> 2.1.7.  Term
> 
>    The number of units added to the domain registration period in
>    "domain:period" RFC 5731 [RFC5731] in create command, renew or
>    transfer command.  If there's no "domain:period", it should take the
>    default value set out of band by the registry.
> 
> I would change “domain:period” to <domain:period>.
> 
> Updated 
> 
> 
> 2.4.7.  INUSE
> 
> Following your naming conventions, would In_Use not be better?
> 
> Agreed, more consistent.  Updated 
> 
> 
> 2.4.8.  Nameserver_Host
> 
>    The full domain name of the host object as defined in RFC 5732
>    [RFC5732] Section 2.1.  The name SHOULD be in A-Label format.
> 
> I would change it from SHOULD to MUST, and add  "as defined by [RFC5890]”.
> 
> 
> Updated 
> 
> 3.7.  Host Inventory Report
> 
> If the name server host has more than one IP address, how should that be filled in?
> 
> There are two ways I can think of.
> 
> (1) split by comma for each IP, and put the whole string inside quote
> (2) allow multiple rows with each row having one unique IP to the same host
> 
> I personally prefer (1) but have no issue if the working group prefer (2)

TS: I would prefer (1), too, because (2) seems like an overhead to me.

> 
> Best,
> Joseph
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> Tobias
> 
> > On 22. Feb 2021, at 23:59, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the IETF.
> > 
> >        Title           : Simple Registration Reporting
> >        Authors         : Joseph Yee
> >                          James Galvin
> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03.txt
> >       Pages           : 34
> >       Date            : 2021-02-22
> > 
> > Abstract:
> >   Domain name registries (the producer) and registrars (the consumer)
> >   report to each other by sharing bulk information through files.  This
> >   document creates two IANA registries to establish a standard
> >   reporting mechanism between domain name registries and registrars.
> >   The first IANA registry lists standard data elements and their syntax
> >   for inclusion in the files.  The second IANA registry lists standard
> >   reports based on the standard data elements.  Each report is a file
> >   formatted as a CSV file.  The advantage of this reporting mechanism
> >   is that report, each file, can be imported by recipients without any
> >   prior knowledge of their contents, although reporting is enhanced
> >   with a minimum of knowledge about the files.  The mechanism for the
> >   transmission and reception of the files is a matter of local policy.
> > 
> > 
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting/>
> > 
> > There is also an HTML version available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03.html <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03.html>
> > 
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03>
> > 
> > 
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
> > 
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > regext mailing list
> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>