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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----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