In reviewing the changes made to
draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-04, I have the following
feedback:
1. The sentence "Each report definition MUST use only the data elements defined
in the data element aforementioned data element registry, including all future
reports." could be simplified to something like "Each registered report
definition [4.1.2.1.2] MUST only use the registered data elements [4.1.2.1.1]".
2. The sentence "Note that a produced report MAY include data elements that are
not registered, as described below" is a little confusing. Is there a
difference between the definition of a report definition and a produced report?
I imagine that a produced report may follow a non-registered report
definition, since there will be many additional reports produced for
registrars. If that is the purpose of the sentence, then it may help to
clarify the different types of reports (e.g., registered reports, registered
report extensions, custom reports):
a. registered reports - Reports produced that contain the exact set of data
elements in a registered report definition.
b. registered report extensions - Reports produced that contain the set of
data elements in a registered report definition with additional appended data
elements. Is it possible to add data elements without having to register a new
report definition?
c. custom reports - Reports produced that don't have a registered report
definition. The report definition may be defined outside of the report
definition registry.
3. The naming of the data elements are inconsistent, where all but one
(DateTime) use snake case with the use of an upper case letter for words (e.g.,
"Transaction_Type") and "In_use" doesn't use an uppercase Use, as in "In_Use".
My recommendation is to define the data element name approach to use, where
word separation is done with a underscore ('_'), acronym words are all upper
case (e.g., "TLD"), and non-acronym words start with an uppercase character
followed by lowercase characters (e.g., "Domain"). Having a pre-defined format
used for data element names will help.
4. As previously stated, I think that the draft should define a report
framework and not include the concrete report definitions (that leverage the
framework). Having a standard set of data elements makes sense, along with the
registration process for data elements and report definitions. But the
structure of the actual reports are reflections of business decisions about
what data elements should be included or excluded. And thus are both variable
in certain business contexts and also variable over time. In contrast, the
definition of data elements along with a registration process for report
definitions is inherently flexible over time and adaptable across business
contexts. Limiting the scope to the framework should prove a lot simpler to
agree upon.
5. The status field values for the Data Element Definition (4.1.2.1.1) and
Report Definition (4.1.2.1.2) need to be defined, with the current values of
active, inactive, and unknown. It's unclear how to choose between the values.
I like the Document Status definition used in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7451#section-2.2.1 for EPP Extensions,
where you may have "Informational" or "Standards Track" values.
--
JG
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[email protected]
<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 7/12/21, 6:40 PM, "regext on behalf of [email protected]"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of
the IETF.
Title : Simple Registration Reporting
Authors : Joseph Yee
James Galvin
Filename : draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-04.txt
Pages : 35
Date : 2021-07-12
Abstract:
Domain name registries (the producer) and registrars (the consumer)
report to each other by sharing bulk information through files. This
document creates two IANA registries to establish a standard
reporting mechanism between domain name registries and registrars.
The first IANA registry lists standard data elements and their syntax
for inclusion in the files. The second IANA registry lists standard
reports based on the standard data elements. Each report is a file
formatted as a CSV file. The advantage of this reporting mechanism
is that a report, each file, can be imported by recipients without
any prior knowledge of their contents, although reporting is enhanced
with a minimum of knowledge about the files. The mechanism for the
distribution of and access of the files is a matter of local policy.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Q6pzLYG4781m7qj4VNwYC0BxrM1HV-2AqACUjG8L40CUjK0VeBOg26lZxF4LdTo5NH77PTZoz5gLXWYV9uyT1t1zALN8mFzlZKAnV1vgbNP1bGHGRJc90MDwMUeugyfSoLBE7KXubZAbpG-O0tP3q_zDnb2Xwkd8cx9L6uCqaGIsB3cMb079j3k0GeQUgCXaRkdds-YwzaGcf2cfuIJ6pA1VVOzV8HT-td-RjfC3gZuoHPK57G13Pue-cat4t_1HIXqEqcsH7U1UBiog7zMctw/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting%2F
There is also an HTML version available at:
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ehXigt8aRnBMseDzGr4ZsGOK_M81stnxr9NJe3KnQQ6MMGS0WwqkuBTyL5m4cs0PsfKpz1Hrn8RinMQ-l41VuCgwB-95cnQr4vP9Ra6oiz5Z3WCKMFPioGLZHfZ0HQZ_HRxjYp_G8v9rQg-kgVdzLw1qnhSycVwPt3YCF3W6drw13u7TTsHkC_1JWlvf97G-ADE_sRPb8b1DC1Cd_2ELnCAx2SgWYfM8rr30DPsjTulzDxPMjd9UnUzYt-BbBHB50vz50g30g2pdQYMAjc14Ig/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-04.html
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fzujF6x8UeJ4OwokT2gMh7InbWzPD-tEcr1Ywpo_QkKhYyIC3wXeheqnzAviCxXQRJlM8qks96_LeuZTjROFxy1StlVHtBJCXNzicWC1KTd_3WHzZ1mT-Q_ppjHGbm4npCfITdSHf68MF5yKvj7dFYheP6TIeqWiGjUdm4n0bD3m7xTzvaJyPBbkzJIfhoUMEraQPmw9ejKDz5Z7r732EGYhHX9dMTws4fvqenU3WRPnrW-JJeImi5yMbt_s8irrNXGnSHw2U0wj6XkO7kJvSg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-04
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1HaXpYgkSaTyhpYJUj7cSXKGiVW_G2KDy2gr9qQm3jpX2H4hOa6YAqAD7AT3t_GBxH-nhTdS7Vtewo94pmAaPGyBL84zxyEzvIjdZtOKaejT9w604jpwFBMSiTBNb3pRASURRHEwnMe9Daf8Flys1u9sCc_nrd-rov78CkUnQtfo3BFgSaAWm3sNM4b6Y_ST6L1quSK3IjEigdu1OanMWhlXvupvluSE5Qqml1rxFvnhQrC0nljIgm2AaNNgmzWjLiwT3xE0A5cRaQ3RyZLllVQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
