Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16
review-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-07-08
Requested 2019-06-24
Draft last updated 2019-07-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -18 by Yoav Nir
Genart Telechat review of -18 by Stewart Bryant
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Review review-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-03
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/zlw3li39fgF4zwPX_DZcwQAWjrI
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 18)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-07-03

Review
review-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-03

Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review Result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments. 

I hope these comments are useful and clear.

From an operational point of view, the document describes protocol interactions for dealing with failure conditions, and sets default behaviors. For example, the RFC 2119 language explaining the use of <fee:currency> is super useful.

Minor comments, questions, and nits for your consideration follow:

1. Section 2 -- Migrating to Newer Versions of This Extension

   (Note to RFC Editor: remove this section before publication as an
   RFC.)

Since forward compatibility is a key operational consideration, why should this section be removed? Especially when it contains RFC 2119 language.

2. Please do not treat as a pedantic comment, but I did not see an actual definition for what "fee" and "credit" mean. Since these words have specific context, it might not hurt to have a formal definition in Section 1.1

3. Should the citation / reference for "ISO 4217" be "ISO 4217:2015"?

4. S3.4. Does this text imply there is no zero fee or credit possible? Might be useful to explicitly set guidance for the use of 0/null fee/credit.

   A <fee:fee> element MUST
   have a non-negative value.  A <fee:credit> element MUST have a
   negative value.

5. S3.6, why "equal to" and not only "exceed"?

   A server MAY reject certain
   transactions if the absolute value of the <fee:balance> is equal to
   or exceeds the value of the <fee:creditLimit> element.

6. Section 6.1

  * Should <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> markers be used as per the TLP?
  * Should the (c) year be 2019?
  * And should the BSD License be part of the code?

7. Section 7, Security Considerations.

What are "security services"? Further, this protocol deals with on-the-wire monetary information. I suspect there might be specific such considerations.

8. Section 9.  Implementation Status

If this section is removed, the reference to [RFC7942] would result hanging without citations to it. ALthough the RFC Editor would catch, might want to indicate removal of the Normative Reference as well.

Thanks!

Carlos Pignataro.