Telechat Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17
review-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17-opsdir-telechat-clarke-2021-10-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2021-10-05
Requested 2021-09-23
Authors Tobias Sattler , Roger Carney , Jody Kolker
I-D last updated 2021-10-06
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -17 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -17 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -19 by Benno Overeinder
Assignment Reviewer Joe Clarke
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/Hgv4JTFlM4SUxCzDOY2pZcYa4D0
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 19)
Result Has nits
Completed 2021-10-06
review-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17-opsdir-telechat-clarke-2021-10-06-00
I have been tasked to review this document on behalf of the OPS Area
Directorate.  This document describes an EPP extension for conveying
maintenance events to EPP clients.  Overall, I find the document mostly ready,
but I do have a few questions, and I found a few typos.

===

Section 3.3

What is the use case for having <maint:start> be equal to <maint:end>?  I would
think you'd always want the end time to be in the future to be a relevant
maintenance event.

===

Section 3.3

s/negotiated value is something other then the/negotiated value is something
other than the/

===

Section 3.3

If one of the intervention elements is true, how does one find out the details
of the connection or implementation-related intervention?  I imagine the URI
would provide that, but I was expecting to see it stated in this document in
the description of these elements.

===

Section 4.1.4

s/command and response is defined/command and response are defined/