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

["Andrew Newton (andy)" <[e-mail]>]

Inline...

On 7/31/24 12:03, [e-mail] wrote:
> Comments inline
>
> On 31.07.24 17:20, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> These changes are a result of the shepherd review in checking 
>> normative references and normative language (see my other email, 
>> which was likely sent when you sent this :) ).
>
> Yes, E-mails crossed.
>
> 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.
>

I think that is a fair point. Normative language pointing to procedural 
steps that do not have normative language can be ambiguous.


>>
>> Would you be satisfied if the first recommendation was labeled with 
>> "This practice has been observed in use." and the other two 
>> recommendations are labeled with "This practice has not been observed 
>> in use."?
>
> This is already stated with each single practice and it would be 
> logically inconsistent the way Section 6 is written now ("MUST 
> implement one of the following practices...").
>
> For me the BCP shall tell like "SHOULD implement practice 1 if 
> existing and operationally proved practices are preferred or MAY 
> consider experimenting with practice 2 or 3 in the future".
>
I don't understand this. A SHOULD and MAY means a practitioner can say 
they adhere to the BCP without doing anything. Also "the future" is 
subjective.

> Repeating in this section, that people using practices highlighted as 
> "This practice MUST NOT be used" shall stop and use any of above 
> instead may be also an idea.
>
In other words, explicitly rule out practices instead of explicitly 
allowing them. If this document is to do that, some of the document 
practices would need to be updated, such as 5.1.3.2 ("renaming to 
as112.arpa"), which has no prohibitive text even though the document say 
the practice is detrimental. At the very least, 5.1.3.2 is a SHOULD NOT 
practice if it has detriment.

What do others think?


-andy