My preference is that a BCP have something to enforce, therefore I like
your suggested change but do think Scott's change to the server language
is needed.
-andy
On 8/1/24 13:09, Orie Steele wrote:
Hi,
I'm happy to hear from the group on this.
If the working group thinks my change request doesn't make sense
please let me know.
Regards,
OS, ART AD
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:18 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
<shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kowa...@denic.de <kowa...@denic.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 4:46 PM
> To: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us>; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-
> 07.txt
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> On 31.07.24 22:16, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
> > 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
>
> -05 and -06 were fine and I'm supportive of those. If it's
SHOULD or MUST or
> we remove normative language entirely would not be substantial
change
> IMHO.
>
> -07 restructured the section 6 so that the 2 issues appeared:
>
> 1) removed preamble and paragraphs so that current and proposed
> practices were set as equal choice to implementers
[SAH] This was done to address feedback we received from Orie
after he read -06. It's based this text found in Section 5 of RC 2026:
"A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
community can define and ratify the community's best current
thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be
the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function."
Note that it says "what is believed to be". There is no
requirement for "best current practices" to be something that's
being done at the moment the document is written.
> 2) added normative text which means the changes are only to be
> implemented by servers
[SAH] That's my mistake, and it's an easy fix. Change "AN EPP
server MUST" to "EPP clients and servers MUST", or "must", or
"can", if people have issues with a normative MUST.
As I said above, Orie requested changes to the text he saw in
Section 6 of -06. We think we addressed his feedback with the
change noted above, but only he can say for sure. I don't want to
revert to -05 or -06 only for him to give us the same "please
change this" feedback during his formal AD review.
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
--
ORIE STEELEChief Technology Officerwww.transmute.industries
<https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
