Subject: [regext] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 17:17:14 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-06: No Objection

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-secure-authinfo-transfer/

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

In the third paragraph of (5.3) there is a roundabout way of saying how the
registry responds to a valid info request by saying that it MUST NOT send no
authorization value, or a non-empty authorization value. It would be more
straightforward to say something like

"the registry MUST respond to a valid info request by the non-sponsoring
registrar with an empty authorization value".