On 7/31/24 15:06, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
Just on this one topic.
On 31.07.24 19:30, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
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.
Yes, "the future" is subjective. That's right. However touches on one
important point.
If the goal is to eliminate those bad existing practices in a
foreseeable near future, then practice 1 is the only that is
practicable and can be implemented by only one party - the clients.
This is by the way also an inconsistency in the current text - it
tells now that EPP MUST servers implement practices, which is not
right for this one. At least the description does not mention any of
server changes needed. For others both servers and clients must
implement collectively.
Practice 2 has a lot of moving parts that needs to change both by
servers and the clients, so nothing one party can implement on the
spot to improve the situation in any way. It maybe recommended as a
target picture, but will take loads of time to implement. Is it then
an equal recommendation referring to the goal?
Practice 3 also require both servers and clients to change, but likely
is easier to implement. Easier does not mean easy, as clients tend to
be reluctant to solutions that work only with selection of registries,
so servers would have to move first and allow for sacrificial.invalid
or alike. I'm not an expert in ICANN policies, but maybe it's even
needed to change those. Also quite broad tests are likely required if
with all those conditions mentioned in 5.1.4.3 are indeed fulfilled in
the wild.
So I don't feel right to put an equal mark within Best Current
Practice document for those three. Whatever "current" means.
Kind Regards,
Pawel Kowalik
Pawel,
The issues you have raised about changes necessary for either or both
the EPP client and EPP server appear to me to go beyond normative
language. Given this type of language is not in any version of the
draft, does this mean you are not supportive of this document regardless
of the -05 or -07 version?
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
