On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 8:53 AM <kowa...@denic.de> wrote: > > [PK] I do not have very hard feelings about changing this MUST NOT but there > will be consequences, that MUST NOT will block those extremely marginal but > VALID cases (like the one I mentioned above, but maybe some others that do > not come to mind now) creating possibly more harm, like a very new identifier > instead of an editorial case correction. Possible harm of "strong" and narrow > defined SHOULD NOT seems to be less. This goes through DEs review anyway, so > they can definitely make the right call. >
Unless I misread the thread, you gave a hypothetical scenario but not an example use case. Can you spell out something more concrete? Otherwise, I cannot see the value in having both "DeNic" and "DENic" registered as two separate identifiers. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
