Thanks very much. For the record, I agree with your choice of option 2. It would be great if we could hear from others and resolve this issue.
-andy On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:17 AM Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andy, > > Sorry for the late response to your message. The updates in -17 were made to > address the feedback from John Klensin during the IETF Last Call, which > included changing the cardinality to the One or Two (ASCII or SMTPUTF8) > Option defined in the IETF-115 presented deck > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-regext-draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-cardinality-00). > One of the elements of the One or Two (ASCII or SMTPUTF8) Option was to > "Provide guidance in draft for the transition period", which is covered in > Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition Considerations" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ) > with normative language. Below are the options to consider for the working > group: > > 1. Keep Normative Language - Keep the Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition > Considerations" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ) > normative language > 2. Change to Non-Normative Language - Change Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition > Considerations" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ) > to be non-normative, similar to Section 6 "Transition Considerations" of RFC > 9154 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9154#section-6). > 3. Use Hybrid Language - Use a hybrid of normative and non-normative language > in Section 8 "SMTPUTF8 Transition Considerations" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai#section-8 ). > The normative elements would be based on working group feedback. > > In reviewing a similar case of Section 6 "Transition Considerations" of RFC > 9154 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9154#section-6), I would > choose option 2 "Change to Non-Normative Language ". > > I would like to hear from others in the working group, including John Klensin. > > Thanks, > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > [email protected] > <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > > > On 1/13/23, 3:46 PM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > I was looking at the diffs between -16 and -17 of the EAI drafts, and > the draft looks to have doubled in size since being submitted to the > IESG. A lot of the new content are examples (always a good thing), but > there has been some other normative language added. Does that need to > be discussed in the WG? > > > For example, one of the new sections is the transition section (8). On > the whole, I think it is very good advice. But I fear it is too > proscriptive for all cases. > > > -andy > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Om45hXA5X8V7Cl1URO2L2OzrwliqUneTEwFpowYcyzVndcxfjmnt7RGOOUOuUpHJXpRuL1EmTqceQmJ9edDqaQy9UY-ltOpO5crGd8uVIeHERHZDr9GDaXx56QhXIWqDogj2FAbs_jZ0yEZApVaptZSbU9kYKlY1qxDEH3oUZAlgpEUVtv7B5OCtkPNPevwMI8q_HsHBtZVUt7qkiokHzK9WedemVr6KX9iPds37OzRCmTZaJtuaqTjkuRP3FS0llwZFYrbao5ERPciM0_YCLp7vYpfri5N9yhhZYGR9jLk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext > > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Om45hXA5X8V7Cl1URO2L2OzrwliqUneTEwFpowYcyzVndcxfjmnt7RGOOUOuUpHJXpRuL1EmTqceQmJ9edDqaQy9UY-ltOpO5crGd8uVIeHERHZDr9GDaXx56QhXIWqDogj2FAbs_jZ0yEZApVaptZSbU9kYKlY1qxDEH3oUZAlgpEUVtv7B5OCtkPNPevwMI8q_HsHBtZVUt7qkiokHzK9WedemVr6KX9iPds37OzRCmTZaJtuaqTjkuRP3FS0llwZFYrbao5ERPciM0_YCLp7vYpfri5N9yhhZYGR9jLk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext> > > > > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
