Inline...
On 7/31/24 12:03, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
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.
I think that is a fair point. Normative language pointing to procedural
steps that do not have normative language can be ambiguous.
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".
I don't understand this. A SHOULD and MAY means a practitioner can say
they adhere to the BCP without doing anything. Also "the future" is
subjective.
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.
In other words, explicitly rule out practices instead of explicitly
allowing them. If this document is to do that, some of the document
practices would need to be updated, such as 5.1.3.2 ("renaming to
as112.arpa"), which has no prohibitive text even though the document say
the practice is detrimental. At the very least, 5.1.3.2 is a SHOULD NOT
practice if it has detriment.
What do others think?
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
