Subject: [regext] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:10:13 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-18: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** There a few easy clarifications that need to be regarding the cardinality of
attributes: -- Section 3.1.  Is the use of command@name optional?  The schema
suggests that it is and the text in this section doesn’t making any claims.  If
blank, how should such a command be processed?

-- Section 3.1.  If command@name=”custom”, MUST   command@customName be
present?  If not, what are the processing instructions to a recipient?

-- Section 3.1 and 3.8.  Can a client send a command@subphase attribute without
a command@phase?  The schema suggests this is possible and clarifying text
provide no guidance.  It seems like this should be an error.

-- Section 3.4.  Can a fee@lang be present without fee@description?  The schema
suggests it can but the text provides no direction.  If this is possible, what
should implementers do with a @lang without a @description?

** Section 6.1.  This section needs a normative reference to W3C Schema as the
format of the blob between the BEGIN and END tags.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 3.4 and 3.9  Per fee@lang and reason@lang, the text don’t explicitly
describe how to specify a language.  It must be inferred from the schema.

** Section 3.4.2.  The format of the grace period is not described in the text.
 It must be inferred from the schema.

** Section 4.  Mixing the schema Boolean notation between false being “0” or
“false” is confusing.  In one paragraph, “The server MUST return avail=’0’” but
in another “the server MUST set the ‘avail’ attribute … to false”