Subject: [Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-validation-epp-02

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:04:14 +0100

Hi,

i've reviewed the draft, here are my comments:

- The draft passes the idnits checker - good.

- Abbreviations in abstract: Some (not all!) RFC have acronyms spelled out 
in the Abstract - i've a request pending with the RFC editors about this.

- Introduction: Please move references to the first occurence (namely ENUM 
[4] from 3rd para to 1st para as well als EPP). There's no need to repeat 
references within the document, like the ENUM reference in section 4.1.

- XML elements are sometimes called "elements", sometimes "field" (4.5.1, 
4.5.2 eg.) Please unify the terminology regarding XML elements.

- 4.4: I'd add quotes around the word "any" - that would make it clearer 
that this is a name, and not the word "any". In addition, i'd point out that 
this is the a schema element by using 'XML schema "any" element'.

- Please put the element/attribute names in quotes. That makes it easier to 
distinguish element names. Most EPP RFCs, however, use <element> to identify 
XML elements - if the Draft should fit into them, that would be an approach, 
too. However, putting elements between <>'s would then clash with the 
command identifiers, however this is already mixed in eg. 5.1.2 where there 
is an "<info> command", but also an "<resData> element". That should be 
cleaned up.

- An XML schema identifier plus namespace in the urn:ietf range is used for 
the validation example data section - however, there is no registration 
requested in the IANA section for this.

- The reference to the EPP domain mapping is repeated several times in the 
draft. I don't think that this is neccessary.

- What about including a sentence like "The number of validationInfo 
elements per domain instance is subject to local registry policy" somewhere. 
That would make it clear that you might eg. limit the number of 
validationInfo elements to 1 per domain (as we are doing that right now ;)

- After "Figure 2": What about changing the sentence to "... successfully, 
an EPP response as described in the EPP domain mapping is returned"? Same 
after Figure 3 etc..

- Both XML schemas pass the validation at http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv

- IANA considerations: As mentioned above, the e164valex is missing.

tia,

alex

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum