Pete, 

Thanks for the review and feedback.  My responses are embedded below prefixed 
with "JG - ".  

-- 

JG



James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com 
<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 6/1/22, 1:14 PM, "Pete Resnick via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:

    Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe. 

    Reviewer: Pete Resnick
    Review result: On the Right Track

    I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
    Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
    by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
    like any other last call comments.

    For more information, please see the FAQ at

    
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1K6cgCFLakXfTnPIeaE2ZwevlkM0KiD6YlQuPilL-K-FXI75spzFhwPbrTminlCoOV1FdlZ-bTNGfTViEpxNNwpy3pP1zuhfVsE4ZUjY7vULMuNEt3p-qQ62KtoXfXHC_KpjCFJHvW7GqkJC_qLRyJ-N78dFJBhWHSKNXlYl2cJL2QXsuMUzInqccq9AGZZJodZnSZU_J1df7jwu242lQtR1zAq0RHYomOugyloQ1oaUDFUXOeh3j2WkUwpPpY3hA/https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq>.

    Document: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10
    Reviewer: Pete Resnick
    Review Date: 2022-06-01
    IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-09
    IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

    Summary:

    I think this proposal is reasonable, but I don't think enough explanation 
has
    been given regarding the case where one side supports the protocol but the
    other side doesn't.

    Major issues:

    The last bullet item in section 5.3.2 talks about "alternative ASCII 
address",
    but I don't see anywhere in the document which defines how to provide an
    alternative ASCII address in the data. For example, RFC 5733 implies that 
there
    will be only one email address in the Contact Mapping; can an implementation
    simply add a second? Does the server then need to distinguish these by the
    presence or absence of non-ASCII characters to determine which is an EAI and
    which is an alternative ASCII address? At the very least, some discussion of
    this seems necessary in the document.

JG - The reference to the "alternative ASCII email address" is for the client 
(registrar) when it's recognized that the server does not support EAI.  If the 
registrar collected an EAI address and an ASCII address, then the ASCII address 
MUST be provided; otherwise, the optional property SHOULD be omitted.  The use 
of an ASCII proxy email address can be used as well.  In this case, the server 
does not support EAI addresses, so it's up to the EAI-supporting client to 
handle it.  Most likely the server validates that the address is only an ASCII 
address, but there is no guarantee of it.   

    Minor issues:

    In the bullets in section 5.3.2, there are quite a few SHOULDs with no
    explanation of why one might choose to violate these. Why are these not 
MUSTs?
    I can't think of any reason, for example, that the server would not validate
    the email property, and it seems like a really bad idea not to.

JG - I cover each of the SHOULDs below:

1. For the required email property with a client that doesn't signal support 
for EAI, the server needs to satisfy the negotiated services . This should be a 
MUST to comply with the negotiated namespaces, since the downside is that the 
client will receive an error response with an info command if they still don't 
support EAI in the login services.   The error response is a MUST in the third 
bullet.
2. For the optional email property falls the same case as the required email 
property, since the info response will result in an error.  It should be a MUST 
as well.  The error response is a MUST in the fourth bullet.


    Nits/editorial comments:

    Abstract: Strike the word "appearing"

JG - Yes, that can be removed.

    Section 3: Change "By applying the syntax rules of [RFC5322]" to "By 
applying
    the syntax rules of [RFC6532]"

JG - I'll leave this one for Dmitry to respond to, but changing RFC5322 to 
RFC6532 looks correct to me.


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to