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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott,

 > > -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:

Apart from the feedback above I don't see my point addressed or a valid 
argument why it should not be of concern.

I take a point of Andy about having something to enforce and it could 
have been achieved without structural change to section 6. The changes 
in -07 address the need in a misleading and confusing way.

Kind Regards,

Pawel

On 06.08.24 17:51, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> So can we make that change and consider the draft ready for AD review?
>
> Scott
>
> *From:* Andrew Newton (andy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 6, 2024 10:50 AM
> *To:* Orie Steele <[e-mail]>; Hollenbeck, Scott 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-07.txt
>
> *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.
>
> 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 STEELE *Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries
>     <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1toHV6cMy-GMvu17PDcSOYTNCPJkFJJPwJUmeXceX-H9CqD3HwPy0MXE-zSmUz6b0cZ9GZn8xI--ru7j4kQIZVchD9yoilCFOj9DyI1XUlFrL_haNuqJXWLjZSz8tnHkU_wLydBmWST8fsJUy8FsfY05gekwcJVzaDRyxdbhni8-9br6owRqjymS9YY3jOZAaAN7X-eWlOKmw465gacMR00f68M8PkEHwcMYjQnWOv7cRjE9KlqdGS3W8YjCfbbkpFm-1wMO30pjSQp47FUfk89OC-fqRbgKfvGBobFFmN0w/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transmute.industries>
>
>     Image removed by sender.
>     <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ecTkdEr3or7tmTLSl-W2-nXGyuiuDuloq43SyomRPIUsvlOqplNb_Pd_TEPxcX-i0OS1HoEGpoUDmxoaLXQAEzsfa6p-FDdtfKT8R9a1MmLWgrH3Gh_wWUMmU5I2LU16gxp8wSJrpafuVQCwqqQ6h0M-mfw04TvsvmTtNBLKgJUQ4B-dqMr9RpDIJPzp1uM84885sagd0uMRimpEpNbHR_zcRJQs0mxYmrqgs0WkS7Z91h6akf7X8CXOvYKYrcfPq8TyP_3s2wBZNsZg3Gf1cZa4jnqELBiR-e1V42PdShU/https%3A%2F%2Ftransmute.industries>
>