> -----Original Message----- > From: Gavin Brown <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:28 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-ext- > registry-epp-02.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. > > Hi Scott, two points:
[SAH] Thanks for the feedback, Gavin! > 1. I think there is an issue with the last paragraph of Section 2.1, which > says > "RFC documents published using the Independent Submission stream do not > meet that requirement [to have "a permanent and readily available public > specification"]". > > This would prevent ISE RFCs from being registered in the EPP Extension > Registry, which I do not think was the intention, since the conversation from > which it arose was about the use of an IETF URN as the namespace URI. > Maybe Andy can chime in here. [SAH] Yes, OK, you're correct. They meet the requirement for a permanent and readily available public specification, but they're not a product of IETF consensus. The impact is on the text you noted below. > I suggest removing that sentence, and changing the third paragraph of Section > 2.1.1 as follows: > > Old: > > Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications; the > designated experts may need to work with a registrant to identify URIs that > can be added to the IETF XML Registry. > > New: > > Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications (which > includes RFC documents published using the Independent Submission > stream); the designated experts may need to work with a registrant to identify > URIs that can be added to the IETF XML Registry. [SAH] Yes, this should be changed as you noted. > 2. I am unclear on the rules about MUST vs must in BCP documents, but there > many instances of lowercase "must" that I think are important, and should be > uppercased, if not to MUST then maybe to SHOULD instead? [SAH] Andy and I touched on this in an earlier exchange. BCP 14 keywords aren't required in a BCP. Note this sentence from the Abstract in RFC 2119: "In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification." A BCP isn't a "standards track document". This sentence was updated in RFC 8174 to "In many IETF documents, several words, when they are in all capitals as shown below, are used to signify the requirements in the specification." BCPs are included with this update. We can make the change if we choose to. I'm fine with the idea of changing the text to use BCP 14 keywords if others see value in the update. Does anyone else support or object to that change? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
