Hi Scott, The proposed updates are ok for me. Thanks a lot.
Jiankang Yao From: Hollenbeck, Scott Date: 2024-12-02 23:06 To: ya...@cnnic.cn; a...@ietf.org CC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; regext@ietf.org Subject: [Last-Call] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jiankang Yao via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 9:29 AM > To: a...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; > regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of > draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp- > 08 > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > Reviewer: Jiankang Yao > Review result: Almost Ready > > Reviewer: Jiankang Yao > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. The Art Area Review Team > (ART-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Please > treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > Document: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08 > Reviewer: Jiankang Yao > Review Date: 2024-11-26 > > Summary: Almost Ready for publication. > > This document describes a very important topic. The whole document is ok. > > One suggestion: > > Based on the title "Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in > the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", this document is supposed to > outline current best practices and proposes the best approaches for deleting > domain and host objects to minimize the risk of DNS resolution failure and > ensure data consistency between clients and servers. But the main part of this > document is section 5 "Analysis of Practices for Domain and Host Object > Deletion", including many sub-sections "Practice Benefits" and "Practice > Detriments". Only small section 6 "Recommendations" seems to describe the > best practices. This arrangement causes me some confusion. > > How about renaming the title to something such as "Analysis and > Recommendation of Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the > Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"? I think that it will help to make the > title and content more cohesive. [SAH] Thanks for the review, Jiankang. The analysis section exists to describe the practices and provide the rationale for why the practices described in Section 6 are "best". I'd rather not rename the document, but we can change the last paragraph of the Introduction to explain why the analysis text is included. Perhaps something like this: "This document describes the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT be deleted" text and the risk associated with host object renaming. Section 5 includes a detailed analysis of the practices that have been and can be used to mitigate that risk. Section 6 includes specific recommendations for the best practices." Scott -- last-call mailing list -- last-c...@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
