Comments inline On 31.07.24 17:20, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
[...]These changes are a result of the shepherd review in checking normative references and normative language (see my other email, which was likely sent when you sent this :) ).
Yes, E-mails crossed.I am still not sure how useful it is to have normative language as such in BCP, especially if it's only used in the section 6, which refers to other sections like 5.1.4.3 which in turn does not contain any normative language at all. Whether it's a MUST or SHOULD is likely a secondary concern and here at least I would like to learn the logic behind the change.
Would you be satisfied if the first recommendation was labeled with "This practice has been observed in use." and the other two recommendations are labeled with "This practice has not been observed in use."?
This is already stated with each single practice and it would be logically inconsistent the way Section 6 is written now ("MUST implement one of the following practices...").
For me the BCP shall tell like "SHOULD implement practice 1 if existing and operationally proved practices are preferred or MAY consider experimenting with practice 2 or 3 in the future".
Repeating in this section, that people using practices highlighted as "This practice MUST NOT be used" shall stop and use any of above instead may be also an idea.
Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
