Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07
review-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07-genart-lc-yee-2021-02-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-02-09
Requested 2021-01-26
Authors James Gould, Martin Casanova
Draft last updated 2021-02-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Tirumaleswar Reddy.K (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter Yee 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07-genart-lc-yee-2021-02-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qKeftBZ7jFQ3XIdav44nngRVWAw
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2021-02-09

Review
review-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07-genart-lc-yee-2021-02-09

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2021-02-09
IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-09
IESG Telechat date: 2021-02-18

Summary: This EPP draft specifies a means to send information about unhandled namespace (a service that the client or server isn't prepared to handle) by means of reusing <extValue>. To the extent of my limited knowledge of EPP, this draft is ready with nits.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

General:

I'm not totally taken with the term "template" for XML examples that aren't wholly templates. On the other hand, I'd like to think that any implementers of EPP would recognize which parts were truly template-like and which parts are borrowed from the various EPP RFCs for example.

A few of the XML examples do not indent the urn in the <reason> block. While that shouldn't matter for the meaning or parsing, the indentation is done inconsistently. If this was intentional (e.g., to prevent wrapping of long lines), then leave it as is. While I don't think of the lines were longer than allowed even if two spaces were inserted before "urn", the easier visual parsing would be appreciated.

Specific:

Page 6, 1st paragraph following XML, 1st phrase: append "for an" after "Template".

Page 6, 1st paragraph following second block of XML, 2nd sentence: insert "an" before "example of".

Page 7, 1st phrase: change the period to a colon to be similar to RFC 5730's style for examples.

Page 7, section 3.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "a" to "an" before "[RFC5730] <extValue>".

Page 9, 1st phrase: change the period to a colon to be similar to RFC 5730's style for examples.

Page 10, section 4, 1st sentence: insert "a" before "new". Insert "rather specifies" before "an operational".  Or something similar.

Page 16, item 3, 1st sentence: consider deleting the comma after "EPP responses".