On 1/15/26 1:59 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> -----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?
My reading on the guidelines says it is not required. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ -andy, as an individual _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
