Moin!

I am an assigned DNS Directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp.

For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir

Overall the draft does a great job explaining the problem space of host object deletion in EPP and uses a great structure for that. 

From a DNS perspective however I think there are some things that could be improved. First I think we need a more precise definition of what renaming means for the DNS referral answer. If e.g the name and not the IP that has different impact on DNS resolution than if a there is a name that is not resolvable or a renaming and giving an IP that actually responds. This should IMHO be added to the cases in section 5. I am not even sure on what the results are for all the cases, but would offer to help with text/examples on that once that is clear for all the cases.

Second on section 5.1.3.4 the text on if I should run an resolver or an authoritative answer for the sacrifical name server host and what the answer actually is. Now there might have been discussions about that that I am not aware of and there may be a reason for the text, but if so it should be noted. My rather simple view on this if I had to run such a server I would answer REFUSED to all the queries I got.

Not related to this draft, but I am happy that the so far proposed DELEG solutions will solve the problem as there no longer is a need for a host object, but as we are not there yet this document is badly needed, so please keep up the good work and if there is anything I can help please reach out.

So long
-Ralf