Hi Scott,
The proposed updates are ok for me.
Thanks a lot.
Jiankang Yao
From: Hollenbeck, ScottDate: 2024-12-02 23:06Subject: [Last-Call] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08> -----Original Message-----> From: Jiankang Yao via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 9:29 AM> To: art@xxxxxxxx> Cc: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx;> regext@xxxxxxxx> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-> 08>> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is> safe.>> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao> Review result: Almost Ready>> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao> Review result: Almost Ready>> I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. The Art Area Review Team> (ART-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Please> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.>> Document: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao> Review Date: 2024-11-26>> Summary: Almost Ready for publication.>> This document describes a very important topic. The whole document is ok.>> One suggestion:>> Based on the title "Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in> the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", this document is supposed to> outline current best practices and proposes the best approaches for deleting> domain and host objects to minimize the risk of DNS resolution failure and> ensure data consistency between clients and servers. But the main part of this> document is section 5 "Analysis of Practices for Domain and Host Object> Deletion", including many sub-sections "Practice Benefits" and "Practice> Detriments". Only small section 6 "Recommendations" seems to describe the> best practices. This arrangement causes me some confusion.>> How about renaming the title to something such as "Analysis and> Recommendation of Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the> Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"? I think that it will help to make the> title and content more cohesive.[SAH] Thanks for the review, Jiankang. The analysis section exists to describe the practices and provide the rationale for why the practices described in Section 6 are "best". I'd rather not rename the document, but we can change the last paragraph of the Introduction to explain why the analysis text is included. Perhaps something like this:"This document describes the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT be deleted" text and the risk associated with host object renaming. Section 5 includes a detailed analysis of the practices that have been and can be used to mitigate that risk. Section 6 includes specific recommendations for the best practices."Scott--last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
