> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 2:06 PM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
> and draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer Document Track
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, at 08:26, Gould, James wrote:
> >
> > Both draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces and
> > draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer are BCP drafts. We have
> > discussed the status of these drafts informally at prior REGEXT
> > meetings and more formally at the IETF-108 REGEXT meeting. Both
> > drafts don’t define protocol, but define operational practices of
> > using the existing EPP RFCs in a more secure or more compliant way. I
> > believe the drafts best match the purpose of a BCP. Please respond on
> > the list with your support for the BCP track or if you believe a
> > different track should be used for one or both drafts.
>
> I believe they both should be "Experimental" instead.
>
> They are not long term widespread "current practices" at all.
>
> As for "best" ones, I am still reserved.
Patrick's reservations have merit. If we as a community can't agree that the
documents describe best current practices, then it might not be appropriate for
them to be published as BCPs. I'd feel more comfortable with publication on the
standards track as technical specifications ("A Technical Specification is any
description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention, or format") as
described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2026.
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
