On 6/2/26 7:15 PM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >>> [SAH] The operational implications can't be known if it's impossible to >> identify operators. If a removal request is received, and the DEs make an >> effort to identify operators to assess the operational implications of >> removal, >> and they fail to identify operators, the removal request should be honored. >> The intention here is to avoid handcuffing IANA and the DEs who will be >> required to review a future removal request. Would this change help? >>> >>> OLD >>> Such requests MUST NOT be granted if the requested action has >> operational implication on other entities that deploy that extension, >> assuming that those entities can be identified. >>> >>> NEW. >>> Such requests can have operational implications for entities that deploy >> that extension. Designated Experts who review these requests MUST assess >> the operational implications of removal, and they MUST NOT approve the >> request if operational implications are identified. The request MAY be >> granted if no operational implications are identified. >> >> Both the OLD and NEW need to be removed. They conflict with section 2.2.3. >> The point of 2.2.3 is that it is the judgement of the IESG if the original >> registrant is not making the request. The "no operational implications" >> means that any excuse can be given to block the action. It would be best to >> remove that entire paragraph. > > [SAH] Andy, since that paragraph was added at Med's request during his AD > review, can I ask that the two of you discuss this during the telechat? Let > me know the outcome and I'll do whatever is decided.
I can certainly attempt it, but I have recused myself on this doc so I have no more standing than any other working group participant. I did not notice the additional text until Mahesh highlighted this issue. The text also has other issues. It does not designate who makes the "operational implication" decision. Is that the DE or the IESG? If it is the DE, then much more guidance needs to be given to the DE regarding what is and what is not an operational implication. Also, how does this registry have operational implications if its purpose is to "help manage and coordinate the development of EPP extensions"? As stated, the purpose of the registry is to aid protocol developers, not implementers. My suggestion is to either strike paragraph 2 or return the document to the working group to define the boundaries of an operational implication. -andy, as an individual _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
