|
On 10/12/16 9:27 AM, Gould, James
wrote:
Robert,
Thanks again for reviewing the draft and providing
feedback. I reply to your replies below.
Responses inline -
On 10/10/16 10:28 AM,
Gould, James wrote:
Robert,
Thank you for your review and feedback.
I provide responses to your feedback below.
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
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document:
draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 5 Oct 2016
IETF LC End Date: 10 Oct 2016
IESG Telechat date: 13 Oct 2016
Summary: This draft is on the right track
but has open issues, described in the
review.
Major Issue:
Many of the descriptions describe only
side-effects of the status instead of the
status itself.
All of the descriptions for the new rdap
status codes start with "For DNR that
indicates". This implies that there is a
"For not DNR" case that's not discussed. I
don't think the phrase is necessary and each
description should look more like the other
descriptions already registered at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml.
For instance, at 'auto renew period' the
document currently says:
"For DNR that indicates if the object is
deleted by the registrar during this period,
the registry provides a credit to the
registrar for the cost of the auto renewal"
That discusses something (and not the only
thing) that can happen while the object is
in that state. It does not describe the
state.
I suggest it should instead say (based on
the text in 3915 and the current registry
entry style):
"The object instance is in a grace period
provided between when its registration
period expires and when its registration is
automatically renewed by the registry."
I don't think it's important to include the
commentary about providing a credit if the
entity is deleted by the registrar during
this period, but since that commentary
exists in 3915, you can include it if you
want. The _important_ part to convey is the
actual status.
The “For DNR that indicates” can
be removed from the descriptions. For
example, the "addPeriod = add period; For DRN
that indicates if the object is …” mapping
could be "addPeriod = add period; If the
object is …”. The purpose of this draft is to
map the statuses defined in EPP and RDAP, so
the status descriptions included in the draft
where taken from the EPP RFC’s. There is no
intent to redefine the statuses included in
the EPP RFC’s in anyway.
But you are not including the entire EPP definition for
most of these - you are only copying in _part_ of it,
and it's not the important part.
Looking at -02 of the draft, you currently have this:
addPeriod = add period; If the object is deleted by the client
during this period, the server provides a credit to the client
for the cost of the registration.
Where did you take the definition out of the EPP suite
though?
On a fast skim, I assumed you took it from this
statement in RFC3915:
addPeriod: This grace period is provided after the initial
registration of a domain name. If the domain name is deleted by
the registrar during this period, the registry provides a credit
to the registrar for the cost of the registration.
You left out "The grace period is provided after the
initial registration of a domain name" which is what the
the status _is_. That's what the status code is
conveying. The extra words about credit after deletion
are commentary about things that can happen while the
object is in that state.
(And you're already changing words by using "the client"
instead of "the registrar".)
Maybe you took the state definition from some other
place?
Many of the other definitions in this document have that
same problem.
Yes, this is the text block from RFC 3915 that was used
as the basis for the description. I disagree that the extra
words about credit after deletion are commentary, since that
is really the point of the status. The status does not do
anything other than to inform the client / registrar that a
credit will be given upon deletion. I can add the “This
grace period is provided after the initial registration of a
object” and look to add similar text to the other statuses.
Does that meet your concern?
It will.
The reason for the change in the terms (object instead of
domain name, client instead of registrar, and server instead
of registry) is based on your prior feedback of not tying
the statuses to the Domain Name Registries (DNR). Does
providing more generic descriptions make sense to you?
I understand. I'm pointing to the tension between the goals of
matching the style of the existing rdap registry and not changing
the definitions from EPP. Don't fret it much. Your argument against
trying to avoid accidentally failing to preserve the meaning of the
EPP status is compelling, so I wouldn't object to staying as close
to the exact words in 3915 as you can.
All of the descriptions will need similar
attention. Some of them (such as
clientUpdateProhibited) currently have 2119
words in the description. That doesn't make
sense - this is a status, not an protocol
instruction, and trying to put normative
language in a registry will lead to
confusion about where the behavior you are
trying to describe is actually defined. (To
be fair, 5731 has this same problem). Again,
I suggest following the style that's already
in the registry and say something like "The
client has requested that any requests to
update this object instance be rejected."
The clientUpdateProhibited status is
defined as:
clientUpdateProhibited = client update prohibited; For DNR that
indicates the client requested that requests to update the object
(other than to remove this status) MUST be rejected.
Where do you see 2119 words in the
clientUpdateProhibited description? The status
descriptions were taken from the EPP RFC’s with
no intent on changing their meaning.
You copied it - above - it's the MUST.
This is 5731's issue - that MUST should have been in
text about what servers do with requests received while
the object is in that state, instead of being part of
the state definition, and the state description in a
registry.
I understand not wanting to risk introducting confusion
by restating a definition since you are simply wanting
to take the EPP definitions completely, so it's probably
the better trade-off to propagate that problem rather
than fix it in this document.
Got it, thanks.
Minor Issues:
You're setting up a minor maintenance
headache for any future work that might
update this document by having the
descriptions listed in two places. I don't
think it's necessary to list the
descriptions in section 2 (currently the
bulk of page 4 and the beginning of page 5).
Instead, stop after the paragraph that ends
at the top of page 4, and note that the
descriptions of each new status code are
provided in section 3.
The desire was for section 2 to
stand on its own to define the statuses and the
mapping, and for section 3 to be used to
register the statuses in registry. I believe it
would be cleaner to duplicate the descriptions
in this instance.
As I note, this is a minor issue, but I disagree.
Cleaner for _who_? It's certainly not cleaner for the
anyone who has to revise this document (and it's not
cleaner for you as the editor of this document or the
RFC editor since you have to make any change in two
places, risking having the document become internally
inconsistent). I don't see how it's cleaner for the
implementer of the specification either.
We can agree to disagree on this one. It is cleaner for
the user of the document. As the editor of the document,
it’s not an issue. Section 2 provides the description of
the mapping and section 3 is for IANA consideration to get
the missing statuses registered into RDAP JSON Values
Registry.
Nits:
Near the end of page 3, the document says
"In the DNR, the client and server
prohibited statuses are separate an RDAP
MUST support the same separation." There are
several nits to address with this. That MUST
is not a good use of 2119. DNR hasn't been
expanded (and "the DNR" is not particularly
clear).
I suggest you replace that sentence, and the
one immediately before it with:
"EPP provides status codes that allow
distinguishing the case that an action is
prohibited because of server policy from the
case that an action is prohibited because of
a client request. The ability to make this
distinction needs to be preserved in RDAP.”
This change will be made.
|
