From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 2:31 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Jasdip Singh <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-01.txt
>> 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/ [JS] I'd largely agree unless the use of uppercased key words here could "limit behavior which has potential for causing harm.” E.g., does the must’s in "IETF namespaces must be reserved for IETF specifications. Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications;” meet that threshold for uppercasing? Jasdip
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
