Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-06.txt

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:38:51 +0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-06.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 10 February 2007
IETF LC End Date: 21 February 2007
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary:
The document itself maybe nearly ready for IESG apart from a few 
editorial nits (see below). However there are a couple of issues with 
associated documents that might upset this situation. 

1. The DCHK schema is allegedly a proper subset of DREG2 which is 
'defined' in an expired draft (and this revision of RFC 3982 isn't 
mentioned in the crisp charter).  So the wg needs to decide if DCHK is 
intended to work only with DREG2 or whether it can also work with DREG - 
and if so whether any backwards compatibility is needed.  If the former 
the wg and authors need to ensure that DREG2 progresses (and that DCHK 
remains a subset of DREG2) or change DCHK to reference the existing DREG 
and ensure that it is a subset of DREG.

2. The crisp LWZ protocol which is referenced is the subject of a major 
DISCUSS in the IESG and has not progressed recently.  The authors and wg 
also need to decide if the reference to LWZ is essential to the progress 
of this document - it could possibly be substituted by appropriate 
weasel words about using a 'lighter weight' protocol if one is defined.

Caveat: I haven't checked the XML schema in detail or checked that it 
*really* is a subset of the DREG2 schema.

Comments:

Editorial
=========

Abstract:Expand IRIS acronym.

s1: Expand DREG2 acronym.

s1. para 2:s/status of domain/status of domain names/

s1, last para: s/effecient/efficient/

s3: Probably good to use the expanded from of DCHK in the section title.

s3.1.1: Caption of <domain> example display: it looks as if XML escapes 
didn't get substituted.  I suspect that this may be to do with using 
XMLmind to edit the doc. XMLmind recognizes XML metacharacters and 
substitutes entities in attributes and text outside CDATA segments. So 
if you input &lt; in (e.g) an attribute, the saved text will be &amp;lt;. 

s3.1.1, several bullets: 'period at' doesn't make sense.  I think you 
mean 'duration of grace period at' in each case.

s3.1.1.1, <description> bullet: I think the 'must' should be a 'MUST'.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf