Subject: [CDNi] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:27:12 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-20: Discuss

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-cdni-metadata/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

RFC 3490 is an obsoleted RFC, need to reference the latest IDNA RFC.

-- You updated description in the document to read (in 2 places):

Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) must first be	
transformed to the IDNA encoding as per [RFC5891].

However this is not clear enough, because you are not saying whether you
want to use A-labels or U-labels. I suggest:

in 4.1.2, change:

         Internationalized Domain
         Names (IDN) must first be transformed to the IDNA encoding as
         per [RFC5891].

to:

         Internationalized Domain
         Names (IDN) must first be transformed to the A-label form as
         per [RFC5891].

You can also add "[RFC5890]" to the end of the sentence (and add it to
Normative References), as it defines A-labels.

Similarly, in 4.3.3, change:

   Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) must first be
   transformed to the IDNA encoding as per [RFC5891].

to:

   Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) must first be
   transformed to the A-label form as per [RFC5891].

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

IANA Auth type registry no longer created? Has this been moved to another
draft?

---

From: Kevin Ma J <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:44:16 +0000

Hi Alexey,

  Thanks for the re-review.  I will update the IDN text as proposed and submit a new version.

  wrt the Auth Type registry, we discussed it in Berlin (and took it to the list): the registry was essentially a duplication of the ptype registry that was left over from before we had the ptype registry, so it was agreed to just remove it.  There was no objection on the list.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 28, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:58:10 +0100

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016, at 06:44 PM, Kevin Ma J wrote:
>   wrt the Auth Type registry, we discussed it in Berlin (and took it to
>   the list): the registry was essentially a duplication of the ptype
>   registry that was left over from before we had the ptype registry, so
>   it was agreed to just remove it.  There was no objection on the list.

Ok. Sorry I missed that.

I just approved -21. It might take a couple of days before the
announcement is sent out.