[regext] Re: FW: Re: normative language and references in draft-ietf-regext-delete-bcp

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

Hi Scott,

On 12.09.24 14:39, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 2:29 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: Re: normative language and references
>> in draft-ietf-regext-delete-bcp
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> I think I am missing your comment on this issue from the previous thread [1].
>>
>>   >> I am still not sure how useful it is to have normative language as such in
>> BCP, especially if it's only used in the section 6, which refers to other sections
>> like 5.1.4.3 which in turn does not contain any normative language at all.
>> Whether it's a MUST or SHOULD is likely a secondary concern and here at least
>> I would like to learn the logic behind the change.
> [SAH] The value of normative language in a BCP is described in Section 6 of RFC 2119:
>
> "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is  actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has  potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)"
>
> "or to limit behavior which has  potential for causing harm". The guidance found in Section 6 of the draft uses normative language in the spirit of limiting behavior which has potential for causing harm. As it says in the draft, "with minimal undesired side effects".
>
[PK] This was not exactly my concern.

Section 6 refers to 5.1.4.3 as one of alternatives of MUST.

5.1.4.3 reads: "EPP clients MAY rename the host object to be 
deleted...". This is followed by "This requires that the client 
maintain...". I would expect some normative language here to be able to 
follow the recommendation of Section 6.

The same applies to the other alternatives of section 6.


When you mention "limit behavior which has potential for causing harm" a 
Recommendation with a normative MUST NOT to practices which actually 
cause harm would be of benefit from this BCP.


Kind Regards,

Pawel