Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 13:59:35 +0000

Peter,

Thank you for your review and feedback.  I provide responses to your feedback embedded below.  The updates based on your feedback and other feedback received will be included in draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-08.  

-- 
 
JG

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[email-masked] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email-masked]>

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

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 2/9/21, 11:49 PM, "Peter Yee via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Peter Yee
    Review result: Ready with Nits

    I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
    Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
    by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
    like any other last call comments.

    For more information, please see the FAQ at

    <https://secure-web.cisco.com/18XJ21QUB_6pM8xC9AxgAF1lQGdVTQGVD3ttr64Abh4xtYEHewGl5EW-GJTbRbKJMuPV8KyCHx1maHQo1jcsWHiNDDCjzavgOvt7VfmB_DlWdSxxhJXOvjbAwge8wZIjdMPCAq5-if9dJdaBbleGZzdSxIhW0jK8ZHx78azgsy9giuHdjzxHH2_RuqllFCneH9ssvSaqyoF-hnGcZykWhn56qLfTatUWQEhL4KRkUvw0jSIB3S5LnrX7UcsJWrlEd/https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq>.

    Document: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07
    Reviewer: Peter Yee
    Review Date: 2021-02-09
    IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-09
    IESG Telechat date: 2021-02-18

    Summary: This EPP draft specifies a means to send information about unhandled
    namespace (a service that the client or server isn't prepared to handle) by
    means of reusing <extValue>. To the extent of my limited knowledge of EPP, this
    draft is ready with nits.

    Major issues: None

    Minor issues: None

    Nits/editorial comments:

    General:

    I'm not totally taken with the term "template" for XML examples that aren't
    wholly templates. On the other hand, I'd like to think that any implementers of
    EPP would recognize which parts were truly template-like and which parts are
    borrowed from the various EPP RFCs for example.

JG - Correct, those that are aware of EPP should be able to pick-up on the use of the placeholder content variables.  In the section 1.1 "Conventions Used in This Document", we did define the placeholder content variables used in the template XML for clarity.  

    A few of the XML examples do not indent the urn in the <reason> block. While
    that shouldn't matter for the meaning or parsing, the indentation is done
    inconsistently. If this was intentional (e.g., to prevent wrapping of long
    lines), then leave it as is. While I don't think of the lines were longer than
    allowed even if two spaces were inserted before "urn", the easier visual
    parsing would be appreciated.

JG - The instances that you're referring to are located in section 6, where adding a space for the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0" unhandled namespace results in "Warning: Artwork too wide, reducing indentation from 3 to 2".  The "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" unhandled namespace can have two spaces added, but that would be inconsistent with the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0" unhandled namespace in the same example.  I'll go ahead and add the two spaces to the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" unhandled namespace.

    Specific:

    Page 6, 1st paragraph following XML, 1st phrase: append "for an" after
    "Template".

JG - Done 

    Page 6, 1st paragraph following second block of XML, 2nd sentence: insert "an"
    before "example of".

JG - Done

    Page 7, 1st phrase: change the period to a colon to be similar to RFC 5730's
    style for examples.

JG - Done

    Page 7, section 3.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "a" to "an" before
    "[RFC5730] <extValue>".

JG - Done

    Page 9, 1st phrase: change the period to a colon to be similar to RFC 5730's
    style for examples.

JG - Done

    Page 10, section 4, 1st sentence: insert "a" before "new". Insert "rather
    specifies" before "an operational".  Or something similar.

JG - Done.  I used the "rather specifies".  

    Page 16, item 3, 1st sentence: consider deleting the comma after "EPP
    responses".

JG - Done

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:09:00 -0500

Peter, thanks for your review. James, thanks for responding. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Feb 10, 2021, at 8:59 AM, Gould, James <jgould=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art