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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton (andy) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 1:30 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-
> 07.txt
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?

[SAH] That I don't want to make that change. Section 5 describes the known practices, including known risks and limitations. Section 6 is intended to describe practices that we believe are best. I want to stick to that approach.

Scott