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

["Carroll, William" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Eric. They will be fixed in the next version.

I’ve changed those section headings to:
5.1.3.  Observed Practices for Renaming to Sacrificial Hosts
5.1.4.  Potential Practices for Renaming to Sacrificial Hosts
5.2.1.  Observed Practices for Deletion of Hosts
5.2.2.  Potential Practices for Deletion of Hosts

Thanks,
Bill

From: Eric Skoglund <eric.skoglund=[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, June 23, 2024 at 4:58 PM
To: "Carroll, William" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03


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.

Did a quick readthrough this evening, found some minor nits.

In the paragraph:

"Some domain registrars, acting as EPP clients, have rename host
  objects to subdomains of "as112.arpa," such as "empty.as112.arpa"
  [risky-bizness-irtf].  This practice has been observed in use."

"rename" should be "renamed" and for "as112.arpa," the comma should be outside the quotes.

In 5.2.2.1.5.2.:

"since there is no limit with the number of associations to delegated domains."



Change the "with" to either "to" or "on".



"since there is no limit to the number of associations to delegated domains."



IMHO the headings for

5.1.3.  Renaming Observed Practices

5.1.4.  Renaming Potential Practices

5.2.1.  Deletion Observed Practices

5.2.2.  Deletion Potential Practices



Reads a bit clunky to me, how about dropping the "Renaming/Deletion" or conversely something like "Observed Practices for Renaming" etc?



Regards,

Eric



________________________________
From: Carroll, William <wicarroll=[e-mail]>
Sent: 21 June 2024 19:09
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; shollenbeck=[e-mail] <shollenbeck=[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03

Pawel,
I've uploaded a version 04 of the doc with the practices organized into observed and potential subsections. We didn't want multiple listings of best current practices in both sections 5 and 6. Hopefully this version is clear enough.
Thanks!
Bill

On 6/19/24, 6:37 AM, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi Bill,


TBH I didn't know of the structure in 00 and I must admit it's a way
more straightforward to follow, especially with "practices to avoid".
This determination was not that obvious to me when reading the current
version with each method having Benefits/Detriments section. And I think
this is the value I would expect from BCP.


Just thinking, that maybe the best of both, taking into account that
Section 5 only hast 2 Subsections, would be to have the split "practices
to avoid," "best current practices," and "potential practices" under
each of the subsections? This would keep similar practices together and
still be very straightforward as to what is to be avoided and what is
experimental.


Kind Regards,


Pawel




On 18.06.24 21:25, Carroll, William wrote:
> Pawel,
>
> Thanks for the feedback and for catching the mismatch between the abstract and content.
>
> About the suggestion to split section 5, the 00 version of the document split out practices into "practices to avoid," "best current practices," and "potential practices" sections. We found that organization made it difficult to keep track of and compare similar practices across the sections (it required a lot of jumping back and forth), so we reorganized it to the major categories ("renaming to sacrificial hosts" and "deletion of hosts"). I would prefer to keep the current organization but am open to other ideas.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
> On 6/18/24, 1:43 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Section 5 already identifies the practices as observed or not, but we can add clarity by splitting it into two sections. We can also update the abstract. Thanks for the feedback.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12:03 PM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-
>> 03
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> Splitting Section 5 into "Current Practices" and "Proposed experimental
>> Practices" would offer a lot of more clarity in this respect.
>>
>> Also abstract is not mentioning proposed practices:
>>
>> "This document describes best practices to delete domain and host objects
>> that reduce the risk of DNS resolution failure and maintain client-server data
>> consistency."
>>
>> I would change to:
>> "This document describes best current practices as well as proposes new
>> experimental practices to delete domain and host objects that reduce the risk
>> of DNS resolution failure and maintain client-server data consistency.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Pawel
>>
>> On 18.06.24 17:46, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>> Pawel, the document already describes known practices, their issues, and
>> those that are proposed, along with analysis of how they're thought to be
>> better. What's missing?
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:36 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: WGLC:
>>>> draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> In the course of the actual discussion on the clarity of documents we
>>>> produce, especially related to implementation maturity of the
>>>> solutions I would need to repeat the remark I brought up during the call for
>> adoption [1].
>>>> I think the document, being a BCP, should be very specific about
>>>> which methods have already been field proven and which are kind of
>>>> experimental with unknown implementation or operational impact.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG- <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG-> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG-> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WmRFtKB8RXzAHuXHoN-OpHA3vOlG-&gt;>
>>>>
>> G0Gpki1ow4L_ezX0s3WaHnOjI1vjfr3mJJj49Wx2QArJxHz_7WstL3WUkGvQXd
>>>> O_QI2Mxh_wKKA9UvoWj_UJUlybSsh9WVIQK4h2Hcc-
>>>>
>> LRehJ7_1E2xmP1iH5FpdEdMxrN2CGNIlFnFVDNyoiPSKZ_xANApbBjCnW1gXU
>>>> pEpbFO4TVSXTFbYeTzWmJT3PHkqzw4dmncdVrCbGbV8b99WCfG2c-
>>>>
>> ahrgqfi1TBuravVfcBrC61Q9oNp2QGP5FzDQ9hbP2gAR93uA0CSo/https%3A
>> %2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fregext%2FlDkYhEak6_JehglG
>>>> -YuqxBpwgrw%2F
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pawel
>>>>
>>>> On 03.06.24 16:56, James Galvin wrote:
>>>>> The document editors have indicated that the following document is
>>>>> ready
>>>> for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best
>>>> Current
>>>> Practice:
>>>>> Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the
>>>>> Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>> web.cisco.com/1kPqjqwCJfsCxQHvBeBU74pCSqzTWdJQ6jZ6RQm7-
>>>>
>> 2mcVf8pmghWjgEJRqVdkFppbs7M_HiHAE7CVQJzMEmDrBQgrLJGI5WUGwC
>>>> 1rsVWeoAzVgC
>>>>
>> MgBrz_tOOZZ_yWsmaNrvKsCiYCAcKk34iXfGeMuD9YljauXP4IJOs_ATrkUln1aa
>>>> Ezd61l
>>>>
>> pawefS7VAbs77M4BMKMb1NWfX_heCB1wqcD1HYXnSkD203cWebWfQKgj
>>>> 5C8DWHYMuKHwud
>>>>
>> dFtPJJaxGWQA_qb0xjiiL9S3sLb2CbefBMEsC2aAwis4YLx2E/https%3A%2F%2F
>>>> datatr
>>>>> acker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp%2F03%2F
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate your support or no objection for the publication of
>>>>> this
>>>> document by replying to this message on list (a simple “+1” is sufficient).
>>>>> If any working group member has questions regarding the publication
>>>>> of this
>>>> document please respond on the list with your concerns by close of
>>>> business everywhere, Monday, 17 June 2024.
>>>>> If there are no objections the document will be submitted to the IESG.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Document Shepherd for this document is Andy Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Antoin and Jim
>>>>> REGEXT WG Co-Chairs
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> regext mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> To unsubscribe send an email
>>>>> to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]