Hi Scott, > On 9 May 2024, at 20:33, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote:
[snip] >> Section 6.1 describes what the document considers to be the Best Current >> Practice. However, Section 6.2 then lists two "Best Proposed Practices", with >> no context on how those relate to the practice in the preceding section. >> >> Are they "runners up"? Are they proposeed "Best Practices"? If a registry >> implements the practices in 6.2.1 or 6.2.2, do they then not need to >> implement 6.2? >> >> I would recommend adding some context here. If 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 are Best >> Practices, they belong in 6.1. If they aren't, then their relationship to >> what's in >> 6.1 needs some clarification. > > [SAH] The context is given in the Section title and the included back > references. They're proposed best practices. The back-referenced text that > describes each practice notes that they haven't been observed in operation. > We could add something like "The practices in this section are described as > "best practices" because they address the operational risk and have been > observed in operation" to 6.1 and "The practices in this section are > described as "proposed best practices" because they address the operational > risk and haven't been observed in operation" to 6.2. Would that help? Yes, I think it would. Thanks. G. -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
