Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-09: No Objection
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-delete-bcp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done in this document (and thanks to Ralf Weber for the DNS directorate reviews). Nevertheless I have some non-blocking comments. The most important one is about the publication status of BCP (the WG was also not unanimous based on the shepherd's write-up). The document enumerates and evaluates several practices and for some of them adds `This practice MUST NOT be used`, which is rather unusual for a BCP even if the title rightfully says "Best practices" (plural form). I have more trouble with `6. Recommendations` followed by `EPP servers and clients MUST implement one of the following practices` should the "MUST" rather be a "RECOMMENDED" (of course changing the sentence structure)? All in all, an intended status of "PS" or "informational" would be more appropriate. Minor nit: let's move the URL in the informative reference rather than inserting it in-line in the section. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
