IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-09
review-ietf-regext-epp-quic-09-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2026-06-22-00

Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

- Document: draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-09

- Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola

- Review Date: 2026-06-22

- Intended Status: Standards Track

---

## Summary

- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

> This document specifies how the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) is
mapped onto QUIC.

> I would have expected a section or at least some text to explain the use
cases where EPP over QUIC can be deployed.

> In this regards, for example, it can be interesting to understand how EPP
over QUIC can be used as alternative or replacement of the other possible
connections (e.g. TCP, HTTP,...).

> Section 10 on the Operational Considerations should be reviewed. Currently,
it includes several subsections, but it would be better to have some general
considerations at the beginning to introduce the following subsections.

> I would move section 10.7 on the Authentication Considerations under the
Security Considerations section since it is more related to security.

## Major Issues

> From an OPSDIR point of view, it is good to have the Operational
Considerations section. However, I suggest to revise that section to improve
its readability, as mentioned above. In addition, it would be useful to mention
the possible use cases.

---

## Minor Issues

 > In section 5, it is not clear the reason why the total length of the EPP
 data unit is a 32-bit field. I suggest to add an explanation about this design
 choice.

---

## Nits

 > In section 3, the different steps of the message exchange are already
 mentioned. I suggest to add a reference to Figure 1 of section 4 to make it
 easier for the reader to understand.

 > The Operational Considerations section could be moved before the IANA
 Considerations section.

---