Skip to main content

Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) and Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Status Mapping
RFC 8056

Yes

(Alexey Melnikov)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -01)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-11 for -02)
Agree with Mirja that other than the final mapping, section 2 seems mostly redundant with the IANA considerations section and could be removed.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-12 for -02)
Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but what is the goal of these mappings? It would help to have a paragraph or two explaining that. (Or did I miss something?)

Are the mappings reversible?

-1, last paragraph: The MUST probably doesn't need a 2119 keyword. IIUC, it's a requirement on this draft, not on implementations.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-11 for -02)
Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) <mehmet.ersue@nokia.com>

performed the opsdir review

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-10 for -01)
A few minor comments:

- I guess this doc should cite RFC5730 and RFC7482 (?) in the intro...?

- I would propose to directly put the link to the registation in the introduction instead of using a citation ([rdap-json-values]) because I initially didn't realize that this not a doc.

- And effectively you could even remove section 2 mostly or potentially even competely as all information are given (word-for-word) in the IANA consideration section.

And thanks for the nice in in-depth shepherd write-up!

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)