Subject: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:12:43 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09: No Objection

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-regext-allocation-token/

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

Substantive Comments:

- General:

As far as I can tell, the document doesn't explain what an Allocation Token
_is_. It talks about how it is used and what it contains, but I'm not sure what
one represents semantically, or how it gets created, destroyed, etc. I see
Section 7 mentions that Allocation Tokens are defined elsewhere; is there
something that can be referenced? If not, would it be reasonable to add a high
level summary to the introduction?

§3.1.1: "Availability of allocation.example and allocation2.example
domain names are based on the Allocation Token ’abc123’"

I'm confused by this, since the example shows a "mismatch" result for
allocation.example.

§3.2.1, 2nd paragraph:

I'm confused by the idea of a token mismatch for an object that has not yet
been created. (Please see my general comment; some discussion of the lifecycle
of allocation tokens would be helpful.)

Editorial Comments:

§1.1, last paragraph: The "REQUIRED" seems like a statement of fact.

§3.1.1: "If an object requires an Allocation Token and the Allocation
       Token does not apply to the object or an object does not require
       an Allocation Token..."
That's hard to parse. Please consider separate cases for "required but does not
apply" and "not required".