> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 1:50 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: > draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp- > 01.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. > > > > On 1/15/26 1:38 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > Are we comfortable having this document as Informational? (Knowing RFC > 7451 is Informational.) Emulating the IETF XML Registry (RFC 3688), could it > not be at least a BCP if not Standards Track. Key words “MUST”, “SHOULD”, > etc help with clearer guidance, IMO. > > > > */[SAH] I’m comfortable with it as-is, but a change is certainly possible if > there’s some specific reason that the WG thinks it needs to change./* > > There is. IETF process is to be defined in BCPs, not Informationals. The 7451 > was published under the wrong category.
[SAH] That's a pretty good reason! That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to switch to using uppercase key words, though. Should we? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
