Change Poll Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
RFC 8590

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari Yes

Thank you for writing this...

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) Yes

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Thank you for resolving my Discuss point!  Original ballot Comment section preserved below:


Thanks for the generally well-written document!

There are several places in the document where we read about a "list of [...]
values includes" that is in fact required to be one of a fixed enumerated set
of values.  In such cases I would suggest "comprises" or "is" rather than "includes",
which could be taken to indicate the possibility of additional values being defined
at a later time.  Section 2.1 has multiple instances of this, and Section 3.12. as well.

Section 2.2

Maybe state explicitly what it's inserted into, for clarity.

Section 2.3

"CSR" could expand to either "Customer Support Representative" or
"Certificate Signing Request" for some people.  I don't know if there's
better name to suggest.

Section 2.4

I don't know if it's worth saying anything that would remind recipients of
their (non-?)obligation to accept time values that correspond to leap
seconds, but IIRC we've seen cases in the past of software that chokes when
presented with leap-second timestamps.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection