Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07
review-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07-opsdir-lc-wu-2021-02-06-00

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.

This document defines Extensible Provison Protocol (EPP) extension for
unhandled namespace information conveyed to the client. It allow the server
return unhandled namespace information that the client can process later. I
think this document is well documented, however I do have a few questions for
clarification. Major issue: Not found Minor issues: 1.Section 1: I am not sure
how unhandled namespace information exchanging between the client and the
service is compliant with the negotiated services defined in [RFC5730]. Why
error response is not best choice to return this unhandled namespace
information for later handling.

2. Section 3.1/Section 3.2
For Unhandled Object-Level Extension in section 3.1 and Unhandled
Command-Response Extension in section 3.2, I see Template unhandled namespace
response example for an unsupported command-response extension is same as
Template unhandled namespace response example for an unsupported object-level
extension, which make me confused, I am wondering how do we distinguish
Unhandled Object-Level Extension from Unhandled Command-Response Extension in
the XML snippet example. Can you clarify this?

3. When we say converting from an object response to a general EPP response by
the server, does it mean the [NAMESPACE-XML] variable should be replaced by the
object-level extension XML. Where these [NAMESPACE-XML] variable are stored in
the server? Do we need to maintain the mapping between [NAMESPACE-XML] variable
and object-level extension XML? Can you clarify this?