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=40verisign.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > jgould@xxxxxxxxxxxx <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgould@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
