Review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06

Summary: I suppose this is ready for the editing pass. Apologies for not completing it before the telechat.

The document does not do a very good job of describing the overall
flow of the context in which it is going to be used; for example, it
is relatively late in the document that I discovered that claim
notices have expiration dates (launch:notAfter in section 3.3.2).

The document needs a thorough language check, in particular I reacted
negatively to its rather sparse use of commas, which in several cases
left sentences looking ambiguous to me.

However, the implementation section indicates that this is work that
is really waiting for formal approval, and I see no strong reason to delay
the document further.

Nits and grammar points
=======================

Section 1.1

The definitions "launch-1.0", "signedMark-1.0" and "mark-1.0" are not
in fact used. The paragraphs should be rephrased as

"The XML namespace prefix "smd" is used for the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0" namespace. Implementations
MUST NOT ....."

2.2

Grammatical: ", that is unique to the server," is ungrammatical. Just
", unique to the server," would be correct and clearer.

2.3.1

Format: "Claims Check Form" and "Claims Create Form" repeats their
hang text in the paragraph. This is confusing to read in ASCII.

2.4

This sentence: "if a launch status is supported and the launch status
is not one of the final statuses, including the "allocated" and
"rejected" statuses." makes equal grammatical sense if "allocated" and
"rejected" are final statuses or non-final statuses. Could be clearer.

The two sentences starting "Is a possible end state" would be more
grammatical if they were "This is a possible end state".

It is not clear what causes the transition from "validated" to
"pendingAllocation". It is also not clear if a transition possibility
exists straight from "validated" to "allocated" for the case where no
external process is needed.

2.5

"A Launch Application MUST and a Launch Registration MAY" would be
clearer if there were commas around "and a Launch Registration MAY".

2.6.3

This section's sentence structure is unclear due to a missing comma
before "or the <smd:encodedSignedMark>".

3.1

It is completely unclear what functional difference there is between
the "Claims Check Form" (3.1.1) and the "Trademark Check Form"
(3.1.3). I suspect the idea behind "whether or not there are any
matching trademarks, in the specified launch phase, for each domain
name passed in the command, that requires the use of the "Claims
Create Form" on a Domain Create Command." (3.1.1) versus "whether or
not there are any matching trademarks for each domain name passed in
the command, independent of the active launch phase of the server and
whether the "Claims Create Form" is required on a Domain Create
Command." (3.1.3) is that the latter will return claims info in cases
where the former would not, but it's not clear when this makes a
difference to the caller - the same reply info seems to be returned in
both cases.

Another interpretation is that there exist trademarks that match in a
given phase and do not match outside that phase, so that the "claims
check form" may return matches that "trademark check form" would not -
this seems a bit bizarre.