Subject: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-validation-epp-05 LC comments (fwd)

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:28:45 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Scott

I got some LC comments about enum-validation-epp to my personal email and 
would like to ask you for an opinion about those issues related to XML and 
requirements language (quoted below). In particular the 2nd bullet point 
refers to something, which I did the same way as you did earlier in RFC 
4114.

c.u. in Chicago!

cheers,
  Bernie

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:41:00 +0200 (MESZ)
From: "Alfred Hoenes" <[email-masked]>

[...]

(1) Document structure

[...]

It remains unclear whether the 'e164valex' namespace is a normative
part of the document or presented there strictly as an example.
>From Sections 4 and 5, it appears as a pure example, but it is
apparently handled with rank equal to 'e164val' in Sections 6 and 7.

I strongly recommend
- to introduce the 'e164valex' namespace and clarify its intended
   status early in the text,
- to integrate the text above with that in Sections 4.5 and 4.5.*
   (as far as still deemed necessary), and

[...]

(2)  Specification of requirements in Sections 5.2.*

AFAICS, the application of EPP in the ENUM context may make use
of other EPP extensions, and it will comprise transactions (EPP
commands and responses) that do not comprise the exchange of
validation data.

In the second paragraph of sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4,
and 5.2.5, the draft repeatedly specifies, using this pattern:

                                                     [...].  In addition
    to the EPP command elements described in the EPP domain mapping [4],
|  the <_____> command MUST contain an <extension> element.  The
|  <extension> element MUST contain an <e164val:____> element that
    identifies the extension namespace.  The <e164val:____> element
|  contains one or more <e164val:____> elements ...

Both occurrences of "MUST" are inappropriate, IMHO.

a) In the context of ENUM, some EPP transactions will not need
    making use of any extensions.

    Therefore, the first "MUST" should be replaced by a "MAY"
    in (almost?) all instances quoted above.

b) In the context of ENUM, some EPP transactions might feasibly
    make use of EPP extensions other than the Validation Mapping
    extension.

    Therefore, the second "MUST" should be closely reconsidered
    for replacement by a "MAY" in all instances quoted above.

Otherwise, if it is really intended to make the use of the new
extension MANDATORY in every case, transactions (e.g., a transfer
reject) must be made possible by changing the requirements on the
content of the top level e164val elements to allow '*zero* or more'
subelements, not "*one* or more".

[...]

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

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:27:26 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Hoeneisen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:29 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email-masked]; Alfred Hoenes
> Subject: draft-ietf-enum-validation-epp-05 LC comments (fwd)
> 
> Hi Scott
> 

I don't have a strong feeling about this.  It does appear in examples
without explanation, though, so maybe it makes sense to describe it
before it's used.

>                                                      [...].  
> In addition

I disagree with this assessment.  The text in this document is
describing requirements for *this specific extension* alone, in which
case the <extension> element and its children must (or perhaps MUST ;-))
be present as described.  I don't see anything in the document that says
that use of the extension is mandatory in every case.

-Scott-