Subject: [regext] Comments on draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-01

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:05:38 +0200

Hello Gustavo,

I'm implemented
draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-01
in my opensource EPP client.

I have the following comments:

- first, would it be possible to switch the document name from eppext
  to regext? It would be easier to track it since for now, it does not
appear on https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/regext/documents/ 
(or if it is possible for this page to also track *-eppext-* I-Ds ?)

- for the new attribute, "flag" does not seem a very descriptive name.
  Maybe "sync" instead ?
Related to that you've added another layer in the XML structure just
to convey this new flag, but then it creates 4 cases depending on the
presence or absence of the exDate node below. Shouldn't it be simpler
with just a node with a mandatory attribute and an optional (date)
value?

- since you use the same structure for client commands and server
  replies, the text in §2.1 does not explain what the server
could/should reply, as it is written only from the registrar
perspective. Could you elaborate which specific cases the server might
use?

- there are no examples of the third case of §2.1, that is flag=0 + no
  exDate node. Could you add one?

HTH,

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.  -- George Bernard Shaw