Dear Ben, Thank you for your review. Please see my feedbacks below with [Linlin].
Regards, Linlin Linlin Zhou From: Ben Campbell Date: 2018-10-24 06:00 To: The IESG CC: regext-chairs; pieter.vandepitte; regext; draft-ietf-regext-org-ext Subject: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: (with COMMENT) Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org-ext/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work on this. I have a few comments: *** Substantive Comments *** §1: "An organization mapping object defined in [ID.draft-ietf-regext-org] SHOULD be created first." First before what? [Linlin] I noticed that Benjamin had the same comment. So I suggest changing some words here, "Organization object identifiers MUST be known to the server before the organization object can be associated with the EPP object.". *** Editorial Comments *** - General: I'm a little confused by the split in material between draft-ietf-regext-org and draft-ietf-regext-org-ext, especially how the command mapping and related info seems to span both documents. It seems a bit reader-unfriendly. But it's late enough in the process that it's probably not worth changing. [Linlin] Please see my feedback in the "org" draft. - Abstract: Please expand EPP on first mention both in the abstract and in the body. [Linlin] Yes. §2, 3rd paragraph: I know we are not consistent about this, but I find the word “conforming” to be a red flag. Standards track RFCs should be about interoperability, not conformance. I suggest striking all after “presented”. [Linlin] OK. _______________________________________________ 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
