Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces and draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer Document Track

Jim,

Changing from BCP to standards track looks acceptable to me.

Thanks,
Jody.

-----Original Message-----
From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:43 AM
To: shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org; pm@dotandco.com; regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces and draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer Document Track

Notice: This email is from an external sender.

Scott,

Thanks, I agree that there is supporting language in RFC 2026 to support draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces and draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer as standards track technical specifications.  We would change the track of both drafts from BCP to standards track.  Are there additional thoughts from the working group?

Thanks,

--

JG

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgould@Verisign.com>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 9/16/20, 11:12 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 2:06 PM
    > To: regext@ietf.org
    > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
    > and draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer Document Track
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, at 08:26, Gould, James wrote:
    > >
    > > Both draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces and
    > > draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer are BCP drafts.  We have
    > > discussed the status of these drafts informally at prior REGEXT
    > > meetings and more formally at the IETF-108 REGEXT meeting.  Both
    > > drafts don’t define protocol, but define operational practices of
    > > using the existing EPP RFCs in a more secure or more compliant way.  I
    > > believe the drafts best match the purpose of a BCP.  Please respond on
    > > the list with your support for the BCP track or if you believe a
    > > different track should be used for one or both drafts.
    >
    > I believe they both should be "Experimental" instead.
    >
    > They are not long term widespread "current practices" at all.
    >
    > As for "best" ones, I am still reserved.

    Patrick's reservations have merit. If we as a community can't agree that the documents describe best current practices, then it might not be appropriate for them to be published as BCPs. I'd feel more comfortable with publication on the standards track as technical specifications ("A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention, or format") as described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2026.

    Scott
    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    regext@ietf.org
    https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-5xcnRGPSR_FMxlp_u9DCtCkDAP63ET4arcK3x2U08H8dv4pIt0hJyhUEafMW4xCbmfjodXmDB2NeFwNE9cQLzXH-RTaht8knEDRnuu3S-muvpcYvTN6r7VL4l60rMi5I7uBtnsH7QjMy3LT6Lowp_ARN0wqKvRyDdUpc7JLyj-iv4ri64uM16Dsq-4sY6hSoaLEYlIVPEo2f484NABmZ2RqqcFyfaHkIZOKhe03_KGeprRN6ZE0jfY31KV9m-uUWsEL9NDd0NTA44QOSzp3o2wwG0iNzDtjFkBwcfkUdlA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext