Subject: [regext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:04:10 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05: 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-data-escrow/

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

Roman took many of my ideas, so I support his DISCUSS position and his comments.

Some of the BCP14 language in this document feels mushy.  "SHOULD/MUST take all
necessary precautions" isn't very precise, while normally
interoperability/normative language is supposed to be pretty crisp.

"gTLD" and "ccTLD" could stand to be included in the definitions section,
either by prose or by reference if there is one.

This may reveal a weak point in my understanding of XML, but Section 5.1 says
that the type of the deposit is FULL, INCR or DIFF.   Is this case-sensitive?

Section 5.1.1: Should "data-time" be "date-time"?

Section 5.1.2: About "version", although I think this is made explicit in the
XML schema in Section 6.1, I suggest a sentence be added making it clear that
this document specifies version "1.0".

Section 5.1.3: "This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental
or Differential."  This makes it sound like a deposit of those two types not
using this element might be non-compliant.  I suggest instead "This element is
only used in Incremental and Differential deposits."  (Or instead of "used",
maybe "meaningful".)

Section 5.1.4: " It SHOULD be present in all type of deposits."  Same issue. 
Maybe "It is valid for use in all types of deposits."

Section 5.1.4, last paragraph: When would you not apply that SHOULD?  That
strikes me as MUST territory.