Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: Discuss
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-data-escrow/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I had originally included these just as comments, but since another AD brought up the same point I'd like to discuss them: Section 5.1.3: "This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or Differential." This makes it sound like a deposit of those two types not using this element might be non-compliant. I suggest instead "This element is only used in Incremental and Differential deposits." (Or instead of "used", maybe "meaningful".) Section 5.1.4: " It SHOULD be present in all type of deposits." Same issue. Maybe "It is valid for use in all types of deposits." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roman took many of my ideas, so I support his DISCUSS position and his comments. Some of the BCP14 language in this document feels mushy. "SHOULD/MUST take all necessary precautions" isn't very precise, while normally interoperability/normative language is supposed to be pretty crisp. "gTLD" and "ccTLD" could stand to be included in the definitions section, either by prose or by reference if there is one. This may reveal a weak point in my understanding of XML, but Section 5.1 says that the type of the deposit is FULL, INCR or DIFF. Is this case-sensitive? Section 5.1.1: Should "data-time" be "date-time"? Section 5.1.2: About "version", although I think this is made explicit in the XML schema in Section 6.1, I suggest a sentence be added making it clear that this document specifies version "1.0". Section 5.1.4, last paragraph: When would you not apply that SHOULD? That strikes me as MUST territory. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
