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

[[e-mail]]

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.

>
> 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".

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.

Kind Regards,

Pawel