Related to bullet #2, I’m hoping that it addresses file formats such as:
1. Data Escrow File Format (draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow and
draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping)
* This format is associated with data escrow deposits from registration
entities (registry, registrar, privacy and proxy services) to data escrow
providers. Can a data escrow provider be considered a registration entity?
2. Data Set File Format (draft-gould-regext-dataset)
* This format is primarily meant to be between registrar and registry;
although a 3rd party can generate a signed data set.
—
JG
[cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jody Kolker
<jkol...@godaddy.com>
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM
To: Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl>, Registration Protocols Extensions
<regext@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter
Since EPP and RDAP is included in this paragraph:
<<
The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that
describe the following types of information exchanged between entities
involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or
EPP protocols:
>>
Can this paragraph be updated to:
<<
*Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or
configuration options between registration entities.
*Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities.
*Technical guidance for registration processes between registration entities.
>>
The reason for changing the 2nd bullet “*Data formats for files exchanged
between registration entities that
need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.” Is that the data reports
are not downloaded via EPP or RDAP.
Thanks,
Jody Kolker
From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter
Alex,Patrick,
Thank you for your comments. You made some good suggestions.
I agree the scope of the bulletpoints are not that clear and not scoped narrow
enough for people not in this working group and not knowing which documents we
discussed.
How about changing the last paragraph with bulletpoints to this:
---
The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that
describe the following types of information exchanged between entities
involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or
EPP protocols:
*Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or
configuration options regarding EPP and RDAP use.
*Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities that
need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.
*Technical guidance for registration processes that are supported by
EPP or RDAP.
—
To explain out thinking:
The “registry mapping” and similar documents will fall under bulletpoint 1
The draft-gould-regext-dataset and similar documents will fall under
bulletpoint 2
The “dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol” and similar documents will fall under
bulletpoint 3
If you agree to this text, than we will change that in the version we resend to
the IESG for reconsideration.
- --
Antoin Verschuren
Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392
Op 3 sep. 2018, om 17:31 heeft Alexander Mayrhofer
<alex.mayrhofer.i...@gmail.com<mailto:alex.mayrhofer.i...@gmail.com>> het
volgende geschreven:
Hello everyone,
tl;dr - i do agree with all what Patrick said - more inline
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:46 PM Patrick Mevzek
<p...@dotandco.com<mailto:p...@dotandco.com>> wrote:
And I still think it is too broad, especially "Data formats for files"
(which files? what data? why the format needs a specification and a working
group?).
"Registry mapping" and "Registry transition" will probably seem obscure to
anyone
outside of the working group. I am myself not even sure what it covers or not.
I do agree to these points. For a charter, i think the functional area
would be required, and if there wasn't a draft names "registry
mapping", i wouldn't know what it meant (quite blunt: would this
covering the creation of a geographic map of all EPP/RDAP accessible
registries? ;)
Some (hopefully more productive) thoughts:
"Data format for files" -> Data format, yes, but only in the scope of
EPP/RDAP registries and between the involved parties. Limited to
frequent cases of such data exchange.
"Registry mapping" -> Representation of configuration options for
EPP/RDAP registries.
"Registry transition" -> not sure what we should standardize here... a
process? Data beyond escrow?
I understand the intention behind all these, but it seems to me those
reflect milestones rather than an abstract charter strategy.
best,
Alex
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
