Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09
review-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09-genart-lc-halpern-2019-03-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-03-15
Requested 2019-03-01
Authors Ning Kong, Jiankang Yao, Linlin Zhou, Wil Tan, Jiagui Xie
Draft last updated 2019-03-07
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Russ Housley
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Joel Halpern
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09-genart-lc-halpern-2019-03-07
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2019-03-07

Review
review-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09-genart-lc-halpern-2019-03-07

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2019-03-07
IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-15
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as some form of RFC

Major issues:
    This document defines protocol extensions and mandatory procedures to go with them.  As such, it seems it is either Experimental or Proposed Standard, but not Informational.

Minor issues:
    Section 5 consists of a list of behavioral requirements that appear normative, but do not use RFC 2119 language.  If these are indeed normative behavioral requirements, the document should use RFC 2119 language to be clear.  (And therefore, should also include the text explaining and citing RFC 2119.)

   The description in 7.2.1 of the EPP <create> command seems lacking.  After saying that it needs an extension element, it says:
        The <extension> element SHOULD contain a child <b-dn:create> element that identifies the bundle namespace 
        and the location of the bundle name schema.
It is unclear when it is reasonable to omit this <b-dn:create> element.  (We normally include with "SHOULD" explanations of this sort.)
It is unspecified what format of the information in the <b-dn:create> element has.  I suspect that it is assumed to be the same as some other piece of EPP information, but it does not say so.  The only child element for <b-dn:create> given in the schema is the <b-dn:rdn> which is neither a namespace identifier nor a location of the bundle name schema.

    Again in 7.2.2 on the EPP <delete> command, when discussing the addition to the response, it is a SHOULD with no explanation of when it is okay to omit it.  The same applies to the 7.2.3 EPP <renew> command, the 7.2.4 EPP <transfer> command, and the 7.2.5 EPP <update> command.

Nits/editorial comments: