[regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03

"kowalik@denic.de" <kowalik@denic.de> Wed, 26 June 2024 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kowalik@denic.de>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDEAC169419 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=denic.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNiidwET2AZv for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout-b-112.mailbox.org (mout-b-112.mailbox.org [195.10.208.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B414C14F6B5 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [10.196.197.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-b-112.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4W8PsN1Zk3zDsrR; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:56:08 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denic.de; s=MBO0001; t=1719413768; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0sasmgVeksf4kOG4AhKvTGb5NcNVlWWdEKbdrRFDv3w=; b=yqhd3UU/9ntfWb+51huEK8DJLJpZh1wCQ91P+U6dA/kvmNcjjzwrhKrTOi4sA6JuaqofF2 Dd0ZfoGEOYyMh0ilviAZUBqRpivfkSknB3/8OqSZLK+5R5+ZRJOFZpY/rjFIx1X/I6Q37n IU2gcamG8++Z6AAlsN+0powXfFPw8s4NP+kgKO4PQOuE6VB3W9/LRSv19IWbKV5qxIr96X 6VGDRyqOAsa16rP4YR7XHhZvkkFzINO4eweUAD4fqb/f1Abtp6SJpTtZKAXecIfozqsRsK Nf0sqDzdk0saaY/2BPP2c9AvsWH6N6UW7KO28okiUSJ0usuv6OkNHWJetSBHow==
Message-ID: <a3be1737-5811-44be-b58d-c17fe3cef8de@denic.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:56:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "kowalik@denic.de" <kowalik@denic.de>
To: "Carroll, William" <wicarroll@verisign.com>, "shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
References: <591E988C-2F3E-45CA-9E43-874C50CD0F5B@elistx.com> <a3b3ef1e-0fb5-44d5-bae0-1209acabfc02@denic.de> <8b50206930d040cca57dfeef1d0b5144@verisign.com> <42e9b5c1-a064-40b1-af7a-2e55110c2abf@denic.de> <fcf99aa6d7ba45d9a55defdd3f0281a4@verisign.com> <ED42993C-45F0-4762-B168-38F3F72803BE@verisign.com> <2c440941-492f-47b8-a81c-903e120556a7@denic.de> <AAF73742-CBA3-42E7-95AE-8DC1231CB8AD@verisign.com> <01ebce53-823d-4517-a94a-e48d20368c23@denic.de> <977E740A-E288-468B-AF63-3D65FB86E43F@verisign.com>
Content-Language: en-GB, de-DE
In-Reply-To: <977E740A-E288-468B-AF63-3D65FB86E43F@verisign.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms070101090200000404070405"
X-MBO-RS-ID: 7a42e5891f47fd7f030
X-MBO-RS-META: 7akjgppck6qqn931cn6zyn6j5589newm
Message-ID-Hash: GJI6DAPSPEKIR36Z7L5ZRE2JN632Y5VJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: GJI6DAPSPEKIR36Z7L5ZRE2JN632Y5VJ
X-MailFrom: kowalik@denic.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-regext.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/NpP77P094AUnwZnDBbJwyFoCpYA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:regext-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:regext-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:regext-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Bill,

On 26.06.24 15:45, Carroll, William wrote:
> Hi Pawel,
>
> Thank you for your close reading of the doc! We felt that adding a "practices to avoid" to each observed/not-observed section was unnecessary with the best practices already specified. Would you prefer the addition of a "This practice MUST NOT be used" sentence for the worst practices? I think those would include "5.1.3.1. Renaming to External, Presumed Non-Existent Hosts", "5.1.3.3. Renaming to Non-Authoritative Hosts", and "5.1.4.1. Renaming to Pseudo-TLD".
Not sure if normative language with MUST NOT is allowed in BCP, but 
adding MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT will give for sure a clear valuable 
guidance that I would expect from this BCP.
> As to the explicit delete, I think the previous "observed in use" was an incorrect reading of a list email from Gavin Brown about observed practices. For explicit delete, we had in mind that a client would provide an explicit flag specifying that the client wants to delete any host objects belonging to another client ("They would be required to explicitly request deletion of these objects."). As far as we know, no one is currently operating with that practice. I will edit to try to make that clearer, which may make "5.2.2.1.3.1. Explicit Deletion Request" redundant.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the text should be clearer on this 
aspect.

Kind Regards,

Pawel