Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-17: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe the SHOULD in Section 3.1 is misused. What interoperability concern is it addressing? It also appears to be a normative constraint while simultaneously specifying nothing at all. But maybe I'm missing something here, and I'm happy to be set straight. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Takahiro Nemoto for their ARTART review. I support Eric's DISCUSS position. For the SHOULDs in Section 3.2, what are the implications of deviating from this advice? Is there ever a legitimate reason to do so? Thank you for including Section 9. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
