Thanks for the detailed feedback Jim and apologies for the late reply.
Responses are inline.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Jody.
From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:28 PM
To: gal...@elistx.com; regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
Hi,
I did a review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance and the following
is my feedback:
1. Section 1.1 Terminology and Definition
* Since the draft has moved to WGLC, this is somewhat a non-applicable
point, but the latest practice for EPP extensions has been to use a pointed XML
namespace (e.g., “urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:maintenance-0.X”) up until the draft
moves to WGLC, when the XML namespace moves to 1.0 (e.g.,
“urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:maintenance-1.0”). Using the pointed XML namespace
will enable making XML schema changes without impacting existing
implementations. Backward compatibility can be broken based on WG feedback
when using the non-pointed XML namespace.
JWK – Thanks for the feedback We will keep in mind for future drafts. I don’t
believe we can change from 1.0 now?
1. Section 2.3 Maintenance Elements
* I would describe the Maintenance Elements in the description of the
info response (section 3.1.3 EPP Command) and then for the poll message,
I would reference the use of the info response. See how the poll messaging is
described for the section 2.5 of the Launch Phase Mapping
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8334#section-2.5).
JWK – As the elements are defined in 2.3, a reference was added to section 2.3.
We would like to only display the descriptions to the elements once instead of
in both poll and info command sections.
* My recommendation is to only define SHOULD for elements that are not
required per the XML schema, since some of the SHOULD elements in the
description are for required elements in the XML schema. The other EPP
Extension RFCs default to the elements being required, but explicitly define
optional elements using the OPTIONAL keyword.
JWK – Agreed and updated.
* Should the element be of type anyURI or is it free-form
text?
JWK – Updated to “anyURI”.
* The is not defined as a “token” and does not
include an optional “lang” element with a default value of “en” like other EPP
extensions.
JWK – Updated.
* The element is required per the XML schema with inclusion
of at least one element, but it’s defined as a SHOULD.
JWK – Updated schema to minOccurs = “0”.
* The element is required per the XML schema with
inclusion of both the and boolean
elements, but it’s defined as a SHOULD.
JWK – Updated schema.
* Does it make sense for and to be required
per the XML schema for an inactive maintenance?
JWK – Updated to not be required.
* When are inactive maintenances returned?
i. I would assume that only active maintenances would be
returned in the maintenance list, but when querying for a specific maintenance
that has been deleted, can the inactive status be returned?
JWK – Yes.
ii. How long should deleted maintenances be kept around for?
JWK – These seems like server preference, 12 months may be a good standard.
Would like to hear additional opinions from the list.
iii. Wouldn’t it be better to return that the deleted
maintenance does not exist instead of having the concept of an active and
inactive status?
JWK – Would like more input from the list as the authors and I can see either
way.
iv. The Change Poll EPP extension
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8590) could be used in combination with the
maintenance mapping to address the deletion use case, where the previous
version of the maintenance is returned with the change poll reason that the
maintenance was deleted.
JWK – Sounds reasonable, should it be described here? We are agreeable to
either way. Could this be a server option?
* The element includes a human readable “msg” attribute,
which also means that there is the need for the optional “lang” attribute with
a default value of “en”. The “msg” attribute seems to only apply to the
responses and not the command, but the “idType” type is also used for the info
command in the “infoType” type. It would be better to use the “token” type for
the element instead of the “normalizedString” type.
JWK – Agreed and updated.
* The description of the element needs to be revised. I
don’t believe that the description of needs to say “MUST be
present at least once”, since the parent element already
indicates that there MUST be one or more elements.
JWK – We would like to reinforce that the “maint:system: needs to be included.
* For the element, should the “type” attribute and
the “name” attribute be placed in double qu
