From: kowa...@denic.de <kowa...@denic.de> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 4:15 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; a...@hxr.us; orie@transmute.industries Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-07.txt
Hi Scott, > > -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: Apart from the feedback above I don't see my point addressed or a valid argument why it should not be of concern. I take a point of Andy about having something to enforce and it could have been achieved without structural change to section 6. The changes in -07 address the need in a misleading and confusing way. [SAH] I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’ve already agreed that the “EPP Servers MUST” sentence needs to be changed to “EPP clients and servers MUST”. The restructuring of Section 6 that was done in -07 preserves the identification of practices that have been observed in use and those that haven’t by directly referencing the descriptions found in Section 5. -07 straightforwardly identifies what are believed to be the three best practices in a way that directly aligns with RFC 2026. If it helps, we could make the “belief” part clearer by changing the first sentence in Section 6 from this: “The practices in this section address operational risks with minimal undesired side effects.” to this: “The practices described in this section are believed to address operational risks with minimal undesired side effects.” Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
