Hi Bill,Yes, this version makes it clear which methods are current and which proposed. Thanks. I see you didn't decide to keep the category of "practices to avoid" from "00" draft. Is there a reason? It was conveying an important message which ist not that directly stated from the current document.
As the document now has a bit of more nested structure please consider increasing tocdepth, otherwise Table of Content does not offer clear overview of the methods and the document structure. It took me a while to figure out that 5.2.2.1. Allow Explicit Delete of Host Objects has a full own list of extension methods in 5.2.2.1.3. which make yet another ToC level.
I noticed "Allow Explicit Delete of Host Objects" turned from "observed in use" to "not observed in use". Is is an intended change?
I'd also need small clarification. The difference between 5.2.1.1. Delete Affected Host Objects and 5.2.2.1. Allow Explicit Delete of Host Objects. The descriptions are very similar and in the first one the registry would automatically disassociate the deleted host objects from domain objects sponsored by other clients and in the latter it would be done by the client. Is the description correctly saying that the difference is about who is doing die disassociation? How would client disassociate a host object from a domain sponsored by other client? It wouldn't be an update on domain object, would it?
Or are these two methods actually about deleting the domain object and in case of 5.2.1.1. the server implicitly cascading the delete to subordinate host objects resulting in disassociation, and in 5.2.2.1. allowing and requiring the client to explicitly delete those subordinate host objects before deleting the domain?
Understanding that difference would also help me to determine, whether methods listed in 5.2.2.1.3 actually may apply to both those cases or only the second one as the document is structured now with this secion being nested under 5.2.2.1.
Kind Regards, Pawel On 21.06.24 19:09, Carroll, William wrote:
Pawel, I've uploaded a version 04 of the doc with the practices organized into observed and potential subsections. We didn't want multiple listings of best current practices in both sections 5 and 6. Hopefully this version is clear enough. Thanks! Bill On 6/19/24, 6:37 AM, "kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>" <kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>> wrote: Hi Bill, TBH I didn't know of the structure in 00 and I must admit it's a way more straightforward to follow, especially with "practices to avoid". This determination was not that obvious to me when reading the current version with each method having Benefits/Detriments section. And I think this is the value I would expect from BCP. Just thinking, that maybe the best of both, taking into account that Section 5 only hast 2 Subsections, would be to have the split "practices to avoid," "best current practices," and "potential practices" under each of the subsections? This would keep similar practices together and still be very straightforward as to what is to be avoided and what is experimental. Kind Regards, Pawel On 18.06.24 21:25, Carroll, William wrote:Pawel, Thanks for the feedback and for catching the mismatch between the abstract and content. About the suggestion to split section 5, the 00 version of the document split out practices into "practices to avoid," "best current practices," and "potential practices" sections. We found that organization made it difficult to keep track of and compare similar practices across the sections (it required a lot of jumping back and forth), so we reorganized it to the major categories ("renaming to sacrificial hosts" and "deletion of hosts"). I would prefer to keep the current organization but am open to other ideas. Thanks, Bill On 6/18/24, 1:43 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>>> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Section 5 already identifies the practices as observed or not, but we can add clarity by splitting it into two sections. We can also update the abstract. Thanks for the feedback. Scott-----Original Message----- From: kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>> <kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12:03 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com <mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com> <mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com <mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>>>; regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp- 03 Hi Scott, Splitting Section 5 into "Current Practices" and "Proposed experimental Practices" would offer a lot of more clarity in this respect. Also abstract is not mentioning proposed practices: "This document describes best practices to delete domain and host objects that reduce the risk of DNS resolution failure and maintain client-server data consistency." I would change to: "This document describes best current practices as well as proposes new experimental practices to delete domain and host objects that reduce the risk of DNS resolution failure and maintain client-server data consistency. Kind Regards, Pawel On 18.06.24 17:46, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:Pawel, the document already describes known practices, their issues, andthose that are proposed, along with analysis of how they're thought to be better. What's missing?Scott-----Original Message----- From: kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>> <kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:36 AM To: regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03 Hi, In the course of the actual discussion on the clarity of documents we produce, especially related to implementation maturity of the solutions I would need to repeat the remark I brought up during the call foradoption [1].I think the document, being a BCP, should be very specific about which methods have already been field proven and which are kind of experimental with unknown implementation or operational impact. [1] https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG- <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG-> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG-> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG->>G0Gpki1ow4L_ezX0s3WaHnOjI1vjfr3mJJj49Wx2QArJxHz_7WstL3WUkGvQXdO_QI2Mxh_wKKA9UvoWj_UJUlybSsh9WVIQK4h2Hcc-LRehJ7_1E2xmP1iH5FpdEdMxrN2CGNIlFnFVDNyoiPSKZ_xANApbBjCnW1gXUpEpbFO4TVSXTFbYeTzWmJT3PHkqzw4dmncdVrCbGbV8b99WCfG2c-ahrgqfi1TBuravVfcBrC61Q9oNp2QGP5FzDQ9hbP2gAR93uA0CSo/https%3A %2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fregext%2FlDkYhEak6_JehglG-YuqxBpwgrw%2F Kind Regards, Pawel On 03.06.24 16:56, James Galvin wrote:The document editors have indicated that the following document is readyfor submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best Current Practice:Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) https://secure-web.cisco.com/1kPqjqwCJfsCxQHvBeBU74pCSqzTWdJQ6jZ6RQm7-2mcVf8pmghWjgEJRqVdkFppbs7M_HiHAE7CVQJzMEmDrBQgrLJGI5WUGwC1rsVWeoAzVgCMgBrz_tOOZZ_yWsmaNrvKsCiYCAcKk34iXfGeMuD9YljauXP4IJOs_ATrkUln1aaEzd61lpawefS7VAbs77M4BMKMb1NWfX_heCB1wqcD1HYXnSkD203cWebWfQKgj5C8DWHYMuKHwuddFtPJJaxGWQA_qb0xjiiL9S3sLb2CbefBMEsC2aAwis4YLx2E/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp%2F03%2F Please indicate your support or no objection for the publication of thisdocument by replying to this message on list (a simple “+1” is sufficient).If any working group member has questions regarding the publication of thisdocument please respond on the list with your concerns by close of business everywhere, Monday, 17 June 2024.If there are no objections the document will be submitted to the IESG. The Document Shepherd for this document is Andy Newton. Thanks, Antoin and Jim REGEXT WG Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org> <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org>>_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org> <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
