Subject: [regext] doc shepherd comments for draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-14

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:14:49 -0400

As document shepherd I have reviewed:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-14

and provided a shepherd writeup so it can be submitted to the IESG for 
publication.

However, I note the following three editorial nits that the authors 
should correct before submission to the IESG.

1. The document has a normative reference to an internet-draft that has 
been recently published as an RFC:

	draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces -> RFC9038

2. In this paragraph, Section 1.1:

    XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
    moreover, examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in
    the character case presented to develop a conforming implementation.

Change “specifications” to “specification”.  Drop 
“moreover,”.

3. In this paragraph, Section 1.1:

    In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and
    "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and
    white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element
    relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol.

Downcase the use of “REQUIRED”.

With those changes I would recommend to Antoin Verschuren as the 
responsible Chair for this document to submit the next version to the 
IESG for publication.

Jim

---

From: Tobias Sattler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:52:22 +0200

Thank you, Jim.

I have prepared a new version already and ready to do another update to address your points. If that doesn’t break the process.

Please see my comments inline.

> On 18. Jun 2021, at 22:14, James Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> and provided a shepherd writeup so it can be submitted to the IESG for publication.
> 
> However, I note the following three editorial nits that the authors should correct before submission to the IESG.
> 
> 
> 1. The document has a normative reference to an internet-draft that has been recently published as an RFC:
> 

TS: Changed.

> Change “specifications” to “specification”.  Drop “moreover,”.
> 

TS: According to other RFCs, such as RFC9038, it says “Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications and examples provided …” Would you be fine with changing it like that?

> Downcase the use of “REQUIRED”.

TS: Changed.

> 
> 
> With those changes I would recommend to Antoin Verschuren as the responsible Chair for this document to submit the next version to the IESG for publication.
> 
> Jim

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:49:14 -0400

Thanks for the quick response.

One comment inline.

On 18 Jun 2021, at 16:52, Tobias Sattler wrote:

> Thank you, Jim.
>
> I have prepared a new version already and ready to do another update 
> to address your points. If that doesn’t break the process.
>
> TS: According to other RFCs, such as RFC9038, it says “Unless stated 
> otherwise, XML specifications and examples provided …” Would you 
> be fine with changing it like that?

Works for me.  Thanks!

Jim

---

From: Tobias Sattler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:39:49 +0200

Thanks, Jim.

We published a new version to address your feedback.

Tobias

> On 19. Jun 2021, at 02:49, James Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext