Subject: [eppext] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:39:18 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Tim Wicinski's OPS DIR review.
General Summary: Ready with nits

In doing this write up after I wrote my comments, I went and researched
the mail archive, and I found Russ Housley's very succinct Gen-Art
review:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jBbrcEzrRlSPWGcjEVdvTO41ckQ

Specifically the Appendix in the wrong place, the insertion of copyrights
in Sections 3.1 and 3.2

Additionally, in Section 2 "Object Description" there are elements for
the objects that are marked OPTIONAL or MUST. However, there are many
which are not defined either way.  The "assumption" is they are a MUST.
If this is true perhaps some text at the beginning of the definitions

    "Unless otherwise specified, any element defined is a MUST".

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 05:22:58 -0800

> Specifically the Appendix in the wrong place

What Appendix?

>     "Unless otherwise specified, any element defined is a MUST".

This second paragraph in Section 2 doesn't cover it?:

   This section defines some elements as OPTIONAL, the elements not
   defined as OPTIONAL are REQUIRED to be included in the appropriate
   objects.

-- 
Barry

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:00:24 +0100

Hi Barry,

You're right. The comments were for version 3.
All is good now.

Regards, Benoit