Robert, Thank you for your review and feedback. I provide responses to your feedback embedded below.
-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 4/19/21, 7:57 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://secure-web.cisco.com/1nRJLRUiDha_wZnJfplBfW_pNR-Lw2xsv9qMMvatXWM3grB7zxr0vzxD0wFabNBjuWMawi8MSGohvoADlPx1luGJbH3vcnfYlia21So3k4RQWhOHzpjz6fGyDooK4AvwdPkg_1StQ_SQ1RdG0jK21rlCoY0tYim3vJcKfKjai0-12IC-P22F_w_JYt-GJxxgcH6bpU03vRvPp_If8O1a1-zuYTlTQDqMBRy6nyw5QqFA0znDRnkYtP4HTW3SlMD-C/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rxr6X1OLj6yHWwZC-H4jTllgY_zX38cAQ0vMpclzgy1DMDjJs0nEThOO9aqx3f8nku40mR9XpzB1drPdbDe8orN31fBmSJquUXXjrwS6SJCWCyiZEHhf1jbEb1PzB0VLVzPLZn-lYpRt5fYSuB_vJWIKdd84JVnJlqF5VMEx8tG5nQPmSN0S4-NWF--scEabNqkCv2uJwvCKWEmUmANnztp_Fzlg5V_Ng5VEmO9RBN3r9xx30EB0UDiE8rOPG_1K/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer%2F ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for this document. I found it hard to understand what is actually being transferred in the title/abstract. Perhaps this could be expanded a little to help readers who are not familiar with EPP. JG - EPP supports an extensible set of objects that can be transferred between registrars, but the most important object defined is domain names. How about extending the first sentence to provide a little bit more clarity as in "The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), in RFC 5730, defines the use of authorization information to authorize a transfer of an EPP object, such as a domain name, between clients that are referred to as registrars". Providing what is being transferred and between whom may help things out. Do you agree and do you have any recommendations to help non-EPP readers? This could be updated in the abstract and the introduction. I don't feel particularly strongly on this point, but when reviewing this document, I was wondering whether this document wouldn't be better published as informational rather than stds track, given that it seems to describe an operational practice of how an existing protocol (EPP) should be used. JG - The working group had a thorough discussion around the track of the draft, which started out a BCP and moved to standards track. The practice is relevant to the protocol, which does include signaling by the client and the server with defined behavior expectations, so standards track is the appropriate track. Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
