Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-05

[Gould, James]

Adam,

My responses to your feedback is embedded below with a “JG-“ prefix.  I 
highlight which items are addressed in the soon to be published 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06.  

Thanks,
  
—
 
JG



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com  

On 8/18/17, 7:22 PM, "Adam Roach"  wrote:

Sorry for taking a while to get back to this. Responses inline.

On 8/2/17 1:40 PM, Gould, James wrote:
> Adam,
>
> Thank you for the review and feedback.  I provide a response to your 
feedback embedded below with a “JG – “ prefix.  I can post 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06 once there is agreement to the set of changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> —
>   
> JG
>
>
>
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
> On 7/25/17, 11:18 PM, "Adam Roach"  wrote:
>
>  EPP Launchphase Authors --
>  
>  This is my AD review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-05.
>  
>  I have a number of questions and comments about the draft, although I
>  freely admit that many of them may stem from a lack of knowledge on 
my
>  part about the operational models in which EPP is deployed. Please 
bear
>  with me on those points. Comments are in document order, and 
constitute
>  a mix of substantive and minor editorial comments.
>  
>  As a general comment, I believe the document could benefit from 
either
>  some introductory text about how claims operate or a pointer to a
>  document that explains how they operate. I skimmed the documents 
cited
>  in the references section and couldn't easily locate information 
along
>  these lines.
>
> JG – Section 2.3.1 “Trademark Claims Phase” was added in 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-02 to remove the reference to 
draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec and briefly describe the trademark claims 
phase.  Please indicate any information from draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec 
that would help provide clarity without having to add the reference back to 
draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec.

I see that the reference in -01 was normative, and I assume it was 
removed to avoid any unnecessary dependencies. Is there any reason you 
couldn't add a statement in section 2.3.1 along the lines of "See 
[I-D.ietf-regext-launchphase] for additional details of trademark claims 
handling"? That would make it an informative reference, and wouldn't 
create a publication dependency.

JG-Addressed in draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06 with ‘Added an informative 
reference to draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec in section 2.3.1 "Trademark 
Claims Phase". ‘.   I don’t have an issue adding the reference back if it 
doesn’t create a dependency issue for publication.  We did pull some 
information from draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec into 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase to remove the dependency.  I assume that we keep 
the pulled in information and simply add the reference to 
draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec back to the draft as an informative reference. 
 

>  The introduction talks about "registrations" and "applications" 
without
>  defining what these terms mean or citing a definition. As far as I 
can
>  tell, EPP does not define these terms, and I'm having a hard time
>  figuring out the difference. It's probably worth adding a few words 
in
>  section 1.1 that talks about these terms (and, in particular, 
indicates
>  that "application" in this context is very different from how that 
term
>  is generally used in computer science).
>  
> JG-An attempt was made to differentiate a Launch Application from a 
Launch Registration in the Introduction with “…registries often accept multiple 
application for the same domain name during the “Sunrise” launch phase, 
referred to as a Launch Application.  A Launch Registration refers to a 
registration made during a launch phase when the server uses a first-come, 
first-served model”.  A more formal definition can be added to section 1.1 for 
a Launch Application and a Launch Registration to clarify it further.  How 
about the following definitions?
>“A Launch Registration is a domain name registration during a launch 
phase when the server uses a "first-come, first-served" model.  Only a single 
registration for a domain name can exist in the server at a time.”
> “A Launch Application represents the intent to register a domain name 
during a launch phase when the server accepts multiple applications for a 
domain name and the server later selects one of the applications to allocate as 
a registration.  Many Launch Applications for a domain can 

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the 
IETF.

Title   : Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning 
Protocol (EPP)
Authors : James Gould
  Wil Tan
  Gavin Brown
Filename: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06.txt
Pages   : 66
Date: 2017-08-21

Abstract:
   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for the provisioning and management of domain name
   registrations and applications during the launch of a domain name
   registry.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] review draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

I'm reviewing the document again now. I'll send comments after I have a chance 
to talk to Mr. Gould.

Scott

> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 9:57 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] review draft-ietf-regext-change-poll
>
> As the working group discussed at the last IETF meeting, the authors
> believe the following document is stable and ready for final review.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll/
>
> The chairs would like to ask for at least 3 people (other than the
> authors) to indicate they have read this document and agree that it is
> ready for publication.
>
> Please reply to this message if you have any comments or questions, or if
> you agree the document is ready for publication.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
> ___
> 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

[regext] implementation status of organization extension

[Linlin Zhou]

Dear all,
To support WG's suggestion, the organization extension drafts plan to add a 
section on implementation status. If you have already implemented organization 
extention, know of any existing implementations or planned implementations, 
please send me a mail for us to update the drafts. Any reviews or comments will 
be appreciated. 

Regards,


Linlin Zhou
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext