Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt
On behalf of Roger, Tobias and I, thank you for you review Michael. Please see my comments in line below. The updates have been made in github for your review: https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt> Let us know if you have any questions or comments Thanks, Jody Kolker -Original Message- From: regext On Behalf Of Michael Bauland Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:23 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt Hi, I have reviewed the document and support it as it is. Nevertheless, I have the following very minor comments/questions. 1 Introduction: > This mapping provides a >mechanism by which EPP servers may notify and EPP clients to query >upcoming maintenances. While I'm not a native speaker, to me it sounds as if the grammar is not correct in the second part of the sentence. Maybe the "EPP clients to" should be replace by "EPP clients can"? << JWK The text has been updated to "EPP clients can" >> 3.3. Maintenance Elements: The content must not be changed. What about the optional "name" attribute? There's no rule about it so implementations are free to alter this if the ID remains the same. Is that correct/intended? << JWK This is correct, the name attribute can be changed. We see the ID being used as the main identifier to be stored and used to identify the maintenance. The name could be mistyped in subsequent polls or it maybe renamed as the registry sees fit, but we would expect the ID to not change. >> : > The affected maintained system contains the hostname, which > SHALL be an A-label according to [RFC5891]. This again sounds strange to my (non-native) ears. Shouldn't this perhaps be something like: "The affected maintained system's hostname, which SHALL be an A-label according to [RFC5891]." << JWK Text has been updated. >> : There must be exactly one environment. If I want to inform about a maintenance which affects, e.g., both OT&E and staging I have to send two notifications (with two different server unique identifiers). I guess that's a corner case that does not happen too often, so it should be ok. << JWK Thanks for your review. We would see multiple environments needing separate poll messages. >> : Would it maybe make sense to allow multiple occurrences with different language attributes? If I want to add a German and English description. I have seen such notifications from some registries (mainly cc) that communicate in English and their native tongue. << JWK The maint:description element is unbounded. If descriptions in different languages are needed, they can be sent on the same poll message. >> Best regards, Michael -- | | | knipp |Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ---Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon:+49 231 9703-0 Fax:+49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP:michael.baul...@knipp.de Software DevelopmentE-mail: michael.baul...@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp ___ 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
Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance
On behalf of Roger, Tobias and I, thank you for you review Thomas. Please see my comments in line below. The updates have been made in github for your review: https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt> Let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Jody Kolker -Original Message- From: regext On Behalf Of Thomas Corte (TANGO support) Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 6:31 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance Hello, On 3/29/21 14:49, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission > to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-mainte > nance/ > > EXTRA ATTENTION: This is the second WGLC for this document. During the first > WGLC, there were still some substantial comments to be addressed, and there > was not enough positive feedback to declare consensus on this document. Let’s > do better this time and please take the time to review this document and > indicate your support (a simple “+1” is sufficient) or concerns with the > publication of this document by replying to this message on the list. Since > we have 3 authors, we need more reviewers to state support! I reviewed the document and have one comment/question in addition to what Michael mentioned in his previous e-mail: Section 4.1.4. EPP Command, says: "For the Registry Maintenance Notification, there are three types of poll messages, defined by the element in Section 3.3. A poll message applies when a maintenance is created, updated, or deleted." This may be an intentional omission, but in my opinion this should read "five types of poll messages", and the message type list should include the "courtesy" and "end" message types, as it doesn't make sense to define courtesy and end messages while not including them in poll messages. < element in Section 3.3. A poll message applies when a maintenance is created, updated or deleted. A courtesy poll message can also be sent as a reminder of an impending maintenance. An end poll message is sent when the maintenance is completed. >> Otherwise the document seems fine to me, and I support its publication. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com Germany ___ 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
