Hi Andrew, On 10.01.25 17:54, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
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.
Maybe hypothetical, maybe not - depending where we land in all discussions around camel case, all lowcase etc. If the recommendation would turn some of existing extensions to be on the wrong side then changing case of an existing registration may be a real scenario.
Anyway I don't want to spend too much time on this issue. Kind regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
