Subject: [eppext] AD review of draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-10

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:02:11 -0500

My apologies for the long delay in handling this publication request:
I've had a month straight of travel, including a little personal
vacation at the beginning and end.  I'm back and running full steam,
and reviewing the backlog of publication requests from several working
groups.  Thanks for the patience.

This document is well written, and I have only a few editorial
comments of the most minor kind.  Please put fixes for these in your
edit queue -- none of them need to block last call, so I'll request
that tout de suite after I send this message.

-- Section 1 --

   There are certain transactions initiated by a DNS-operator, which
   require an authenticated exchange of information between DNS-
   operators.  Often, there is no direct channel between these parties
   or it is non-scalable and insecure.

A picky English usage thing: in the first sentence you should remove
the comma and change "which" to "that".  I can explain if you want to
know why (just ask), or you can look up the difference between a
restrictive clause (which it should be) and a non-restrictive clause
(which it is).

-- Section 1.2 (also Section 6) --
You refer to this as "this I-D", which won't make sense when it's
published as an RFC.  Please change to "this document".

-- Section 2.1.1 --
Should the two instances of "previously send" be "previously sent"?

--
Barry