Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply.
My comment about the intended status as mainly to check whether this was discussed because it is really unclear to me what is the most suitable intended status for this I-D. But, as you wrote ` The WG had the same debate. We eventually decided that BCP status was appropriate given the guidance found in RFC 2026`, then I think we are all set. Regards -éric From: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> Date: Monday, 3 March 2025 at 16:18 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>, i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-...@ietf.org>, regext-cha...@ietf.org <regext-cha...@ietf.org>, regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org>, a...@hxr.us <a...@hxr.us>, d...@fl1ger.de <d...@fl1ger.de> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-09: (with COMMENT) > -----Original Message----- > From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 7:38 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-...@ietf.org; regext-cha...@ietf.org; > regext@ietf.org; a...@hxr.us; a...@hxr.us; d...@fl1ger.de > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-epp- > delete-bcp-09: (with COMMENT) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > 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://secure- > web.cisco.com/1R2NIg47oHu2N7Te7YZGUWda627R_HYRj2Kh68iSDFz2j_Hb > DXFYzuRn0aLr8LSF3V7ihULxnFSTZWOrbMSVrf0zzHBi5aWQaH1up4CAKM3W > QUUtKm8VMA5r6pzZDHlITYuIK1GJjb_-pJFGGa6w5-E3YlbtvmAXH- > qQPohYEsPANtC93HMSWBRl- > cVAxrfMiFvarHLpIYm8c6AFoqGaUFGe4bal_shKrMeZfLSEsOqdkoNq9FX25wG > TeLYnW5szft-OKCIz9PZJtYduFICLal0uE8SjKOATYtjZEcbx-lj- > wE70OKGD5rMbhbD7R- > WCF/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatem > ents%2Fhandling-ballot-positions%2F > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://secure- > web.cisco.com/1IchEIlSPb4p0MZcYUGFV04q2fsiKKypU3jPqkfNrJO_5CmEvO > q45v7_WNv9X54B8oDvG26vVR53Qh9giasbLosG-- > Kas3yx04sECByE_bLziK7Zji912tgp75s0h9EHxA_KwTdRhPr7WWNzjfhc0GnHvj > eBjWvXWG1rmuHcfQA8_0UemHzLEEBLlgXftUPdWKkKRagRK8HU4Gnpl- > kdT_IxLFoD_KB3CmCMBNNaKxpkuhRBALvdjY3EdR8mnP6vCCro- > ffx9buoNx2DlGqSk8DZj0d81ujL5dcvwHlxKJNggY88jQF6pJqRvrtE9EGsD/https > %3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-delete- > bcp%2F > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. [SAH] Thanks for the comments, Éric. The WG had the same debate. We eventually decided that BCP status was appropriate given the guidance found in RFC 2026: "A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function." Note where it says "what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function". > Minor nit: let's move the URL in the informative reference rather than > inserting it in-line in the section. [SAH] We can make that change. Thanks for the suggestion. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
