Subject: [regext] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 23:44:53 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-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-dnrd-objects-mapping/

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

[To the IESG: In the IANA Considerations section, the contact for all
registrations is "IESG <[email-masked]>".  That's not the IESG's address
though.  (I remember us discussing this in previous telechats, but it's late
and I'm blanking on whether this is the outcome we wanted.)]

My colleagues have made a lot of good suggestions already, so I don't have much
to add other than these:

In Section 8, there's this bullet:

   o  If a Differential Deposit is to be tested, the dataset is created
      by using the Differential Deposit plus all the required deposits
      leading to the last previous Full Deposit.

It seems obvious, but should this make clear the order in which the
differential deposits are applied?

Totally a nit (which I now see Eric V also mentioned): In a couple of places
there's an ASCII expression like "ASCII value 0x002B".  Since ASCII is 7-bit,
shouldn't that just be "ASCII value 0x2B"?