Dear Pieter,
Thanks for your support. I'll update the text according to your comments.
Please see some my feedbacks inline.
Regards,
Linlin
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
From: Pieter Vandepitte
Date: 2018-04-13 22:06
To: James Galvin
CC: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
I don't want to delay the publication, and I support it, but there are still
some issues/concerns
Typos/errors
EPP provides two commands to retrieve domain information
Should be: "EPP provides two commands to retrieve organization information".
This document does not define a mapping
for the EPP <transfer> command to retrieve domain-object transfer
status information..
change domain-object to organization-object
[Linlin] These typos will be modified.
EPP provides four commands to transform organization object
information: <create> to create an instance of an organization
object, <delete> to delete an instance of an organization object,
<transfer> to manage organization-object sponsorship changes, and
<update> to change information associated with an organization
object. This document does not define a mapping for the EPP
<transfer> and <renew> command.
It should be three commands. (Also remove the part " <transfer> to manage
organization-object sponsorship changes,").
(I'm even not sure that the draft should not support transfer. )
[Linlin] Yes. Words will be updated.
In 4.2.1:
o A <org:status> element that contains the operational status of the
organization, as defined in Section 3.4.
I think it's zero, one or more org:status elements. It can be
clientUpdateProhibited and clientDeleteProhibited at the same time for
instance...
[Linlin] I'd like to change the text to "Zero or more OPTIONAL org:status
elements".
Food for thought:
Postal Info
(1) Why do we still stick to the original model of contacts as the new model
for organization, with postal info is required (and within the postalInfo, name
and address is required)? I think, we should be very cautious when making
attributes required. If it's required for the protocol, I agree, but this is
not the case. It's more a policy thing, which must be described in other
documents (like ICANN policy documents). E.g. at .be, we are considering to
model resellers, but we don't need the address, only the URL. Moreover, this
original contact model can potentially become problematic in the context of
GDPR (although i don't see a lot of issues with reseller contact data)
(2) I would not define a postalInfo type. The sole purpose as far as I can
think of, is to make the postal info legible for people that use ascii script
in their language (transliteration). If transliteration would be the use case,
I would not restrict that to transliterations between ascii and "the rest", but
then I would define a "script" or "lang" tag, which defines the script of the
postal info, and allow zero to infinite postalInfo elements to allow multiple
transliterations (not only to us-ascii).
( As a side note: I always struggled with the "int" type. For me, "Int" =
"international" = any script / character set allowed, which is the opposite)
(3) As mentioned in a previous post, I still doubt the need for different
contact types within an organization, but let's make abstraction of that...
Can't the organization's postalInfo data be modeled as a linked contact? Much
simpler
[Linlin] As I expalined before, our requirements was to have a reseller
extension with its own contacts and hierarchy. So we keep the postInfo part of
RFC5733 to store the address information. For most of the registries and
registrars, this structure is more familiar with them.
Organization Roles
(1) Although I doubt the need for a roleid, I think we should either remove it,
or extend it. The role id is the id of the organization in a third party source
(e.g. in case of a Registrar, IANA is a third party source, and id is "the
IANA-id"). It is IMO possible that an object is known in different sources with
different "IDs"
So, for completeness, the org:roleid should have an attribute indicating the
authoritative source of the id, in case of a Registrar IANA id, it could be
"iana".
[Linlin] Until now, the optional is only used for the IANA-id. I am not sure
what are other sources to get the roleid?
(2) As I understand, organization roles can be used in links. But what if a
link exists for a specific role, and the organization role is removed
afterwards from the organization? As I understand from James in a previous
reply to Patrick, this should match (in fact it's a MUST). This is not
described as far as I can see. Wouldn't it be a good idea, in order to have a
unambiguous understanding, to describe that in draft-ietf-regext-org-ext
(create, update) and in draft-ietf-regext-org (update, delete)?
[Linlin] There are some words in section 4.2.2 "An organization object MUST NOT
be deleted if it is associated with other known objects. An associated
organization MUST NOT be deleted until associations with other known objects
have been broken." I am not sure if this is ok for you.
Kind regards
Pieter
On 13 Apr 2018, at 15:21, James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com> wrote:
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org/
Please indicate your support for the publication of this document.
If any working group member objects to the publication of this document please
respond on the list by close of business everywhere, Friday, 27 April 2018. If
there are no objections the document will be submitted to the IESG.
During the last call the chairs are looking for a document shepherd for this
document. If you are interested in being the document shepherd please let the
chairs know. The document editors cannot be the document shepherd.
If you’ve never been a document shepherd before don’t worry. It’s a great way
to understand the IETF process and your chairs would be delighted to help you
through it.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
WG Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
