Hi Joe, Thank you for your review and comments.
We have added our replies inline below and updated v18 on GitHub (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt <https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt>) accordingly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best, Tobias > On 6. Oct 2021, at 21:29, Joe Clarke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joe Clarke > Review result: Has Nits > > I have been tasked to review this document on behalf of the OPS Area > Directorate. This document describes an EPP extension for conveying > maintenance events to EPP clients. Overall, I find the document mostly ready, > but I do have a few questions, and I found a few typos. > > === > > Section 3.3 > > What is the use case for having <maint:start> be equal to <maint:end>? I > would > think you'd always want the end time to be in the future to be a relevant > maintenance event. TS: Good point. Fixed, we removed the part “be equal to". > > === > > Section 3.3 > > s/negotiated value is something other then the/negotiated value is something > other than the/ > TS: Fixed. > === > > Section 3.3 > > If one of the intervention elements is true, how does one find out the details > of the connection or implementation-related intervention? I imagine the URI > would provide that, but I was expecting to see it stated in this document in > the description of these elements. TS: Fixed, we added a reference to <maint:detail> in the description. > > === > > Section 4.1.4 > > s/command and response is defined/command and response are defined/ TS: Fixed. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
