[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-07.txt

["Andrew Newton (andy)" <[e-mail]>]

My preference is that a BCP have something to enforce, therefore I like 
your suggested change but do think Scott's change to the server language 
is needed.

-andy

On 8/1/24 13:09, Orie Steele wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm happy to hear from the group on this.
>
> If the working group thinks my change request doesn't make sense 
> please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
> OS, ART AD
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:18 AM Hollenbeck, Scott 
> <shollenbeck=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 4:46 PM
>     > To: Andrew Newton (andy) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action:
>     draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-
>     > 07.txt
>     >
>     > Hi Andy,
>     >
>     > On 31.07.24 22:16, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
>     > > Pawel,
>     > >
>     > > The issues you have raised about changes necessary for either
>     or both
>     > > the EPP client and EPP server appear to me to go beyond normative
>     > > language. Given this type of language  is not in any version
>     of the
>     > > draft, does this mean you are not supportive of this document
>     > > regardless of the -05 or -07 version?
>     > >
>     > > -andy
>     >
>     > -05 and -06 were fine and I'm supportive of those. If it's
>     SHOULD or MUST or
>     > we remove normative language entirely would not be substantial
>     change
>     > IMHO.
>     >
>     > -07 restructured the section 6 so that the 2 issues appeared:
>     >
>     >      1) removed preamble and paragraphs so that current and proposed
>     > practices were set as equal choice to implementers
>
>     [SAH] This was done to address feedback we received from Orie
>     after he read -06. It's based this text found in Section 5 of RC 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 that it says "what is believed to be". There is no
>     requirement for "best current practices" to be something that's
>     being done at the moment the document is written.
>
>     >      2) added normative text which means the changes are only to be
>     > implemented by servers
>
>     [SAH] That's my mistake, and it's an easy fix. Change "AN EPP
>     server MUST" to "EPP clients and servers MUST", or "must", or
>     "can", if people have issues with a normative MUST.
>
>     As I said above, Orie requested changes to the text he saw in
>     Section 6 of -06. We think we addressed his feedback with the
>     change noted above, but only he can say for sure. I don't want to
>     revert to -05 or -06 only for him to give us the same "please
>     change this" feedback during his formal AD review.
>
>     Scott
>     _______________________________________________
>     regext mailing list -- [e-mail]
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> ORIE STEELEChief Technology Officerwww.transmute.industries
>
> <https://transmute.industries>
>