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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott,

On 07.08.24 14:15, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> *From:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2024 4:15 AM
> *To:* Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-07.txt
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> > > -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:
>
> Apart from the feedback above I don't see my point addressed or a 
> valid argument why it should not be of concern.
>
> I take a point of Andy about having something to enforce and it could 
> have been achieved without structural change to section 6. The changes 
> in -07 address the need in a misleading and confusing way.
>
> */[SAH] I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’ve already agreed that 
> the “EPP Servers MUST” sentence needs to be changed to “EPP clients 
> and servers MUST”. The restructuring of Section 6 that was done in -07 
> preserves the identification of practices that have been observed in 
> use and those that haven’t by directly referencing the descriptions 
> found in Section 5. -07 straightforwardly identifies what are believed 
> to be the three best practices in a way that directly aligns with RFC 
> 2026. If it helps, we could make the “belief” part clearer by changing 
> the first sentence in Section 6 from this:/*
>
> */“The practices in this section address operational risks with 
> minimal undesired side effects.”/*
>
> */to this:/*
>
> */“The practices described in this section are believed to address 
> operational risks with minimal undesired side effects.”/*
>
This is not my point.

I'm missing an equivalent to the following part of -06, in particular 
the 2nd sentence: The "Best Proposed Practices" have not been observed 
in operation. The analysis presented in this document suggests that they 
could become best practices if deployed.

My proposal would be to add the following sentence before proposals 2&3 
in the -07 variant:
"The following practices have not yet been observed in operation however 
the analysis presented in this document suggests that they could become 
best practices if deployed:"

Kind regards,

Pawel