> This is incorrect according to RFC4741, and I have replied to the SecDir > review on the list that it is as well. > Section 2.2.1. of RFC4741 states:
This should be RFC 7451 of course. Don’t know where that cut and paste went wrong ;-) - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 > Op 27 sep. 2019, om 17:13 heeft Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl> het > volgende geschreven: > > Barry, > > I have not reviewed all the comments yet, but I am only responing to this one: > >> The SecDir review suggested changing the contact for the IANA registrations >> to the IETF, rather than the authors, and I agree: it should be “the IETF”, >> probably with the regext mailing list as the contact information. You did >> not make any change. Please do. > > This is incorrect according to RFC4741, and I have replied to the SecDir > review on the list that it is as well. > Section 2.2.1. of RFC4741 states: > > Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the > person that is responsible for managing the registry entry. If the > registration is of an IETF Standards Track document, this can simply > be listed as "IESG, <i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>”. > > draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is NOT an IETF Standard Track > document. > draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is an IETF INFORMATIONAL document, > and it is for a reason. > The REGEXT working group did not consent that this draft produces a standard, > and therefor refused Standards track stream. > The REGEXT working group did allow the authors to document their proprietary > EPP extension in an informational IETF document, and adopted the document to > help review. > This informational document only documents a proprietary EPP extension. > > Proprietary EPP extensions are allowed in the IANA EPP Extensions registry, > with an informational RFC as one type of documentation, but they are > registered in the IANA registry with the name and email address of the one > that registers the proprietary extension, which is the authors and NOT the > IESG. Only Standard track documents are listed with the IESG as contact in > the IANA EPP extensions registry. > The purpose of the IANA EPP extensions registry is to eventually consolidate > all proprietary extensions to standards and the registered contact is one of > the recognition points if an EPP extension is a standard. > We do not want proprietary EPP extensions to become standards without consent > of the REGEXT working group. > > I can understand that this can be confusing for the IESG, since they mostly > review standards track documents as output from the REGEXT working group, but > this is one of the few exceptions that is deliberately an informational > document. > > - -- > Antoin Verschuren > > Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL > M: +31 6 37682392 > > > > > > >> Op 26 sep. 2019, om 06:17 heeft Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org >> <mailto:barryle...@computer.org>> het volgende geschreven: >> >> This remains quite incomplete: the last call comments have not been properly >> handled. >> >> In Sections 6.1, 6.2, 7.1.2, and all the 7.2.x you made changes in response >> to Adam’s AD review, but you tried to use the second of his suggested fixes. >> What you did do is flawed, as you have introduced a space character between >> the two U+ characters (which is why he advised against that fix, because >> doing it without the extra space makes it hard to read, but adding the space >> makes it wrong). Please fix that. I suggest using Adam’s XML-escaping >> example to fix it. >> >> The Gen-ART review asked for BCP 14 key words in Section 5, and you said you >> would add them. You did not. That’s fine if you ultimately decided not to >> (I personally think it is not necessary), but I want to make sure you didn’t >> simply forget to make that change. >> >> The Gen-ART review asked for a brief explanation of what the conditions >> might be for not complying with the “SHOULD” requirements in Sections 7.2.x, >> and what the consequences would be. You did not add that, and I think it’s >> necessary. Please add an explanation in each of those sections. >> >> The SecDir review suggested changing the contact for the IANA registrations >> to the IETF, rather than the authors, and I agree: it should be “the IETF”, >> probably with the regext mailing list as the contact information. You did >> not make any change. Please do. >> >> You also did not address my comment about needing an explanation for why >> this is Informational and not Proposed Standard. It’s fine for it to be >> Informational, but the shepherd writeup needs to explain why (please update >> it), and the Introduction probably should also, assuming that reason has to >> do with the deployment, applicability, or maturity of what’s documented here. >> >> I won’t pass this up to the IESG until all these points are addressed. So >> back into Revised I-D needed this goes, and please handle this without undue >> delay. >> >> Thanks, >> Barry >> >> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn >> <mailto:ya...@cnnic.cn>> wrote: >> Dear Barry, >> >> The new version has been submitted. It addresses the comments received >> during IETF LC. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-10 >> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-10> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jiankang Yao >> >> >> > -----原始邮件----- >> > 发件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn <mailto:ya...@cnnic.cn>> >> > 发送时间: 2019-09-13 16:39:04 (星期五) >> > 收件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org >> > <mailto:barryle...@computer.org>> >> > 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org >> > <mailto:draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org>, >> > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >> > 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of >> > draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09 >> > >> > >> > Thanks Barry. >> > We have finished an initial new version. We will refine it and submit it >> > within 2 weeks. >> > >> > Best Regards. >> > >> > Jiankang Yao >> > >> > > -----原始邮件----- >> > > 发件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org >> > > <mailto:barryle...@computer.org>> >> > > 发送时间: 2019-09-13 09:21:02 (星期五) >> > > 收件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn <mailto:ya...@cnnic.cn>> >> > > 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org >> > > <mailto:draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org>, >> > > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >> > > 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of >> > > draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09 >> > > >> > > > Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your >> > > > guidance. >> > > >> > > It's been almost 12 weeks. Is a new version forthcoming? When can we >> > > expect it? >> > > >> > > Barry >> > > >> > > > > 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org >> > > > > <mailto:barryle...@computer.org>>; 写道： >> > > > > >> > > > > Hey, regext folks, >> > > > > >> > > > > This document had an AD review from Adam, a Gen-ART review from Joel, >> > > > > and a SecDir review from Russ, and went through IETF last call. All >> > > > > three reviews were responded to on the regext mailing list (by >> > > > > Jiankang and by Antoine), but there has been no revision of the draft >> > > > > to address the issues raised. That has to happen. >> > > > > >> > > > > While we're there, there's the issue of the Informational status and >> > > > > the registrant contact for the namespace: >> > > > > >> > > > > It's my understanding that this isn't specifying a standard, but, >> > > > > rather, is documenting an existing non-standard extension that is not >> > > > > expected to be a standard nor widely implemented. Is that correct? >> > > > > >> > > > > If so, the document should make that clear in the Abstract (briefly) >> > > > > and in the Introduction (somewhat less briefly). >> > > > > >> > > > > Also, the shepherd writeup doesn't help me understand why this is >> > > > > Informational, and it should: (from the writeup text, emphasis mine) >> > > > > "Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's >> > > > > abstract is usually good for this), and WHY THE WORKING GROUP HAS >> > > > > CHOSEN THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION TYPE". You say the working group >> > > > > decided, but you don't say why. >> > > > > >> > > > > So: >> > > > > Please revise the draft to address the last call reviews, and also >> > > > > please add something to the Introduction (and possibly the Abstract) >> > > > > to explain the status of the document, making clear what the >> > > > > standards >> > > > > or non-standards status is and what applicability we expect for it. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm putting this into a "Revised I-D Needed" substate, awaiting such >> > > > > revision. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Barry >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > regext mailing list >> > > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >> > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > regext mailing list >> > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list >> regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > _______________________________________________ > 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
