Re: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
On 4/8/13 13:45 , John Curran wrote: On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:06 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: 3. Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4; The constituencies and stakeholders for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number of constituencies in civil society have legitimate interests in Public WHOIS. I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Public WHOIS is more than just a technical issue, and section 4 seems to scope it as solely a technical issue. It's definitely a bigger issue, but it does not seem appropriate in an IETF document to assert points about all aspects of the issue, but instead better to just note the _technical considerations_ of the topic that are needed to keep the Internet running. I don't think you need to refocus section 4 from Technical Considerations I think simply recognizing that there are more than just technical considerations, especially for Public WHOIS, something like the following should be sufficient; 2) ...have included consideration of the technical and operational requirements, as well as requirements of other stakeholders, for supporting WHOIS services... This text would be the authors asserting that these requirements (those of other stakeholders of Whois) have been considered, and yet there are wide range of non-technical aspects to Whois that quite probably have not been fully considered; e.g. issues similar to those in various ongoing discussions of DNS Whois at ICANN this week... The section is about the _technical considerations_ that have been considered in establishment of the Internet Numbers Registry System, and to change the text as you suggest would significantly expand its scope into areas not currently addressed in the text and not typical of other IETF documents, i.e. problematic. You are probably right, but the first paragraph of section 4 says; As a result of the system of technical standards and guidelines established by the IETF as well as historical and operational constraints, there have been technical considerations regarding the services provided by the Internet Numbers Registry System as it evolved. These technical considerations have included: Specifically where it says as well as historical and operational constraints seems to open the door for what I'm talking about. The way it is written, the historical and seem to stand apart from, separate from, or in addition too, the technical standards and guidelines of the IETF. Historical constraints is rather broad and could easily include non-technical considerations. Which the issues of broader society and Public WHOIS are certainly some of the historical non-technical considerations. So I'd suggest that paragraph should get some work, to better represent the intent you have stated for this section. I suggest the following text, based on my interpretation of what you are saying. I feel it better constrains the discussion to the technical domain. In particular changing historical and operational constraints to something like historic operational practices. As a result of the system of technical standards and guidelines established by the IETF, as well as historic operational practices of the Internet community, there are technical considerations regarding the services provided by the Internet Numbers Registry System, these included: Thanks. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
Re: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
On 4/7/13 20:34 , Russ Housley wrote: Many of the comments that were posted to this list have been incorporated. Please comment on the updated document. 1. Section 6 and the last paragraph of section 1 are mostly duplicative, I'd suggest eliminating section 6 and merging it into the last paragraph of section 1. In particular the part and omits policy and operational procedures that have been superseded by ICANN and RIR policy since RFC 2050 publication. That is the only thing in section 6 that isn't already in the last paragraph of section 1. Unless you have plans to dramatically increase whats in section 6. 2. Also, the references for RFC 1366 and RFC 1466 are missing. 3. Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4; The constituencies and stakeholders for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number of constituencies in civil society have legitimate interests in Public WHOIS. I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Public WHOIS is more than just a technical issue, and section 4 seems to scope it as solely a technical issue. I don't think you need to refocus section 4 from Technical Considerations I think simply recognizing that there are more than just technical considerations, especially for Public WHOIS, something like the following should be sufficient; 2) ...have included consideration of the technical and operational requirements, as well as requirements of other stakeholders, for supporting WHOIS services... Other stakeholders are recognized in general in section 5, but this is a little different, this is recognizing while Public WHOIS is a technical issue, it is more than just a technical issue. Whereas Reverse DNS is almost entirely a technical issue. Thanks. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
Re: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:06 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: 3. Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4; The constituencies and stakeholders for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number of constituencies in civil society have legitimate interests in Public WHOIS. I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Public WHOIS is more than just a technical issue, and section 4 seems to scope it as solely a technical issue. It's definitely a bigger issue, but it does not seem appropriate in an IETF document to assert points about all aspects of the issue, but instead better to just note the _technical considerations_ of the topic that are needed to keep the Internet running. I don't think you need to refocus section 4 from Technical Considerations I think simply recognizing that there are more than just technical considerations, especially for Public WHOIS, something like the following should be sufficient; 2) ...have included consideration of the technical and operational requirements, as well as requirements of other stakeholders, for supporting WHOIS services... This text would be the authors asserting that these requirements (those of other stakeholders of Whois) have been considered, and yet there are wide range of non-technical aspects to Whois that quite probably have not been fully considered; e.g. issues similar to those in various ongoing discussions of DNS Whois at ICANN this week... The section is about the _technical considerations_ that have been considered in establishment of the Internet Numbers Registry System, and to change the text as you suggest would significantly expand its scope into areas not currently addressed in the text and not typical of other IETF documents, i.e. problematic. FYI, /John
