Telechat Review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06
review-ietf-regext-launchphase-06-artart-telechat-alvestrand-2017-12-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-regext-launchphase |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
Deadline | 2017-11-28 | |
Requested | 2017-10-20 | |
Authors | James Gould , Wil Tan , Gavin Brown | |
I-D last updated | 2017-12-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -06
by Scott O. Bradner
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff) Genart Last Call review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Artart Telechat review of -06 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Harald T. Alvestrand |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2017-12-06 |
review-ietf-regext-launchphase-06-artart-telechat-alvestrand-2017-12-06-00
Review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06 Summary: I suppose this is ready for the editing pass. Apologies for not completing it before the telechat. The document does not do a very good job of describing the overall flow of the context in which it is going to be used; for example, it is relatively late in the document that I discovered that claim notices have expiration dates (launch:notAfter in section 3.3.2). The document needs a thorough language check, in particular I reacted negatively to its rather sparse use of commas, which in several cases left sentences looking ambiguous to me. However, the implementation section indicates that this is work that is really waiting for formal approval, and I see no strong reason to delay the document further. Nits and grammar points ======================= Section 1.1 The definitions "launch-1.0", "signedMark-1.0" and "mark-1.0" are not in fact used. The paragraphs should be rephrased as "The XML namespace prefix "smd" is used for the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0" namespace. Implementations MUST NOT ....." 2.2 Grammatical: ", that is unique to the server," is ungrammatical. Just ", unique to the server," would be correct and clearer. 2.3.1 Format: "Claims Check Form" and "Claims Create Form" repeats their hang text in the paragraph. This is confusing to read in ASCII. 2.4 This sentence: "if a launch status is supported and the launch status is not one of the final statuses, including the "allocated" and "rejected" statuses." makes equal grammatical sense if "allocated" and "rejected" are final statuses or non-final statuses. Could be clearer. The two sentences starting "Is a possible end state" would be more grammatical if they were "This is a possible end state". It is not clear what causes the transition from "validated" to "pendingAllocation". It is also not clear if a transition possibility exists straight from "validated" to "allocated" for the case where no external process is needed. 2.5 "A Launch Application MUST and a Launch Registration MAY" would be clearer if there were commas around "and a Launch Registration MAY". 2.6.3 This section's sentence structure is unclear due to a missing comma before "or the <smd:encodedSignedMark>". 3.1 It is completely unclear what functional difference there is between the "Claims Check Form" (3.1.1) and the "Trademark Check Form" (3.1.3). I suspect the idea behind "whether or not there are any matching trademarks, in the specified launch phase, for each domain name passed in the command, that requires the use of the "Claims Create Form" on a Domain Create Command." (3.1.1) versus "whether or not there are any matching trademarks for each domain name passed in the command, independent of the active launch phase of the server and whether the "Claims Create Form" is required on a Domain Create Command." (3.1.3) is that the latter will return claims info in cases where the former would not, but it's not clear when this makes a difference to the caller - the same reply info seems to be returned in both cases. Another interpretation is that there exist trademarks that match in a given phase and do not match outside that phase, so that the "claims check form" may return matches that "trademark check form" would not - this seems a bit bizarre.