Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[Ted Hardie]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:27 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:

>
> >> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I
> >> agree with Frank and would go a step further.   While the
> >> document indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for
> >> address registry usage, as far as I know it has not been
> >> deployed for anything else either and has become part of the
> >> wreckage along the path to try to replace Whois for registry
> >> database use.
> >>
> >> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
> >>
> >
> > This came up in the context of the IAB trying to work out how
> > useful some of the existing delegations in .arpa are, and the
> > current draft reflects that.  Updating RFC 4698 was, in other
> > words, the simplest thing we could do.  Given the feedback,
> > I'm fine with updating that to "obsoletes RFC 4698", since the
> > data support the notion that this is not currently in use.
> >
> > I don't have the data to support a broader statement about
> > IRIS, as I know that there was some deployment at one time.  I
> > would be fine seeing a deprecation if one is warranted, in
> > other words, but I'm not sure I can put one forward to the
> > community.
> >
> > Do you object to obsoleting just RFC 4698 by this document?
>
> Object, not really.  I do see it as creating something of a
> silly state in which we leave the protocol apparently active and
> recommended while eliminating a key facility for utilizing it in
> a particular way should one decide to do so.


This actually reflects how the IRIS documents specified the extension to
include address registrations; that facility was separately specified and
could have been separately deployed.  As far as we can tell, no one has
deployed AREG.  I've agreed that obsoleting the document, rather than
simply updating it, appears to have community support.  To put this another
way, I personally see the AREG and DREG uses of IRIS as distinct, and I
believe that reflects both the document structure and my ability to get
data on their use.   The data provided by examining the logs shows that
there is no current use of RFC 4698 facilities, but there is no parallel
data set for DREG available to me.


>  The only thing
> that makes the address registries different in this regard is
> that the number of possible uses is small and easily identified.
>
> One of your comments above helps identify what concerns me about
> this document, so let me take a step back and address that.  So
> the IAB decides that it should do a review of "how useful some
> of the existing delegations in .arpa are".  Seems worthwhile to
> me although I might wonder whether the Internet and the various
> protocol relationships were in such good shape that the IAB
> should prioritize that work,


It originally came up in the context of
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/
but the discussion after that was pretty clear that the IAB couldn't
deprecate anything requested in Proposed Standard without an IETF consensus
document.  That's why this is a personal document going for proposed
standard, not an IAB document.



> But then I'd expect an I-D that
> said that the IAB had conducted that review and was, e.g.,
> elimination all of the subdomains/ registries that were unused
> or that supported obsolete protocols (or particular applications
> of protocols) and obsoleted the standards-track documents
> creating those registries.  Perfectly orderly.
>
>
Each of the others where we might consider deprecation also requires an
IETF consensus document, and they represent different communities of use
(or did when specified).  Putting them all into one document would make
this more "the IAB has decided" than "X, who happens to be a member of the
IAB,  suggests that the IETF should consider deprecation of FOO".  The
latter seems more in keeping with our practice, at least as far as I see it.

Had the community already obsoleted the relevant protocols, then I agree,
the IAB could clean up the delegations without further ado.

regards,

Ted
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, January 29, 2018 10:11 -0800 Ted Hardie
 wrote:

> Sorry for the delay in replying; I was returning from the QUIC
> meeting in Melbourne.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:13 AM, John C Klensin
>  wrote:

>> --On Thursday, January 25, 2018 14:55 +0100 Frank Ellermann
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> > On 22 January 2018, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> >> If you have thoughts
>> > 
>> > Maybe "obsoletes 4698" instead of only "updates 4698" would
>> > be clearer for readers of RFC 4698.
>> 
>> Ted,
>> 
>> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I
>> agree with Frank and would go a step further.   While the
>> document indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for
>> address registry usage, as far as I know it has not been
>> deployed for anything else either and has become part of the
>> wreckage along the path to try to replace Whois for registry
>> database use.
>> 
>> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
>> 
> 
> This came up in the context of the IAB trying to work out how
> useful some of the existing delegations in .arpa are, and the
> current draft reflects that.  Updating RFC 4698 was, in other
> words, the simplest thing we could do.  Given the feedback,
> I'm fine with updating that to "obsoletes RFC 4698", since the
> data support the notion that this is not currently in use.
> 
> I don't have the data to support a broader statement about
> IRIS, as I know that there was some deployment at one time.  I
> would be fine seeing a deprecation if one is warranted, in
> other words, but I'm not sure I can put one forward to the
> community.
> 
> Do you object to obsoleting just RFC 4698 by this document?

Object, not really.  I do see it as creating something of a
silly state in which we leave the protocol apparently active and
recommended while eliminating a key facility for utilizing it in
a particular way should one decide to do so.   The only thing
that makes the address registries different in this regard is
that the number of possible uses is small and easily identified.

One of your comments above helps identify what concerns me about
this document, so let me take a step back and address that.  So
the IAB decides that it should do a review of "how useful some
of the existing delegations in .arpa are".  Seems worthwhile to
me although I might wonder whether the Internet and the various
protocol relationships were in such good shape that the IAB
should prioritize that work,  But then I'd expect an I-D that
said that the IAB had conducted that review and was, e.g.,
elimination all of the subdomains/ registries that were unused
or that supported obsolete protocols (or particular applications
of protocols) and obsoleted the standards-track documents
creating those registries.  Perfectly orderly.

But, here, the document seems to single out one particular
subtree and a single application of a protocol that has gotten
little or no traction in it more general form.  It that is the
topic, I think the IAB is under some obligation to explore that
protocol and its present-day utility and active implementations
a bit further (especially in the light of Andy's note) or, if
that is too burdensome, to include a (very brief) explanation
about why IRIS itself is not being retired and/or why the IAB
doesn't consider it useful to examine that question.

Disclaimer: My position on this issue is conditioned by part of
my view of the role of the IAB in current times.  That view is
that the IAB should be functioning as a sort of architectural
think tank and, (at least at the conceptual level), an oversight
body.  That, in turn, implies that the IAB should be looking at
whole-system issues, specifically including how particular
protocols and sets of protocols interact with what has recently
started being called the "Internet ecosystem".  While it isn't
my personal highest priority, I think the IAB's taking on a
review of RFC 3172 and clean-out of registries that are no
longer relevant would be a find idea.  Conversely, if the IAB
decides at another look --at a system-wide level-- at registry
databases of many or all flavors is in order, I'd consider that
a worthy task, even if it focused on cleaning up the options
that have never taken off, whether you went back to Whois++
(which has been declared obsolete) or Rwhois (which hasn't).
But to clean out a single application (and registry) or a single
protocol just seems to me like a poor use of time and a likely
source of confusion for those who might decide to read and think
about the IRIS protocol documents.

My vocabulary is somewhat different from that used by Brian and
the IAB in 2008, but I believe it is consistent with RFC 2850.

If the community no longer believes in that vision of the IAB,
my view may be irrelevant, but a revision or replacement for RFC
2850 is probably in order.

best,
   john



___
regext mailing 

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[Ted Hardie]

Sorry for the delay in replying; I was returning from the QUIC meeting in
Melbourne.

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:13 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, January 25, 2018 14:55 +0100 Frank Ellermann
>  wrote:
>
> > On 22 January 2018, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >> If you have thoughts
> >
> > Maybe "obsoletes 4698" instead of only "updates 4698" would be
> > clearer for readers of RFC 4698.
>
> Ted,
>
> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I agree
> with Frank and would go a step further.   While the document
> indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for address
> registry usage, as far as I know it has not been deployed for
> anything else either and has become part of the wreckage along
> the path to try to replace Whois for registry database use.
>
> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
>

This came up in the context of the IAB trying to work out how useful some
of the existing delegations in .arpa are, and the current draft reflects
that.  Updating RFC 4698 was, in other words, the simplest thing we could
do.  Given the feedback, I'm fine with updating that to "obsoletes RFC
4698", since the data support the notion that this is not currently in use.

I don't have the data to support a broader statement about IRIS, as I know
that there was some deployment at one time.  I would be fine seeing a
deprecation if one is warranted, in other words, but I'm not sure I can put
one forward to the community.

Do you object to obsoleting just RFC 4698 by this document?

regards,

Ted


> (probably just recognizing what has happened historically), then
> we should be formally obsoleting all of the IRIS documents at
> the same time (and/or moving them to Historic) so they are no
> longer listed as Proposed Standards and implicitly recommended.
> That means at least RFC 4698 but also 4414 and the original
> protocol specifications (3982-3983).  That would require
> broadening the scope of this document somewhat and adjusting its
> title but, having skimmed through it, would not require
> significant work.
>
> By contrast, if you believe that the ISOS protocols and the
> other registries and identifiers are still relevant for
> implementation and use, I think it would be helpful if this
> document said that explicitly.   For example, you might
> explicitly indicate that IRIS had additional applications (with
> a reference or two) and that, unlike the address registries,
> those are still in use and Recommended.
>
> best,
>john
>
>
>
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[Antoine Germanos]

Jan 25, 2018, at 5:42 PM, John C Klensin  wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:20 -0500 Andrew Newton
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:13 AM, John C Klensin
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I
>>> agree with Frank and would go a step further.   While the
>>> document indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for
>>> address registry usage, as far as I know it has not been
>>> deployed for anything else either and has become part of the
>>> wreckage along the path to try to replace Whois for registry
>>> database use.
>> 
>> My understanding is that DCHK did get deployed by two domain
>> registries. I do not know if they still use it though.
> 
> Even if they do, a move to Historic and/or Obsolete doesn't
> change their situation, it is just an implicit recommendation
> that others should not rush out to deploy this or even actively
> consider it as a option.  If something more nuanced is needed,
> it is probably time to write an A/S and have this particular
> registry/ subdomain removal be part of that.
> 
>>> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
>>> (probably just recognizing what has happened historically),
>>> then we should be formally obsoleting all of the IRIS
>>> documents at the same time (and/or moving them to Historic)
>>> so they are no longer listed as Proposed Standards and
>>> implicitly recommended. That means at least RFC 4698 but also
>>> 4414 and the original protocol specifications (3982-3983).
>>> That would require broadening the scope of this document
>>> somewhat and adjusting its title but, having skimmed through
>>> it, would not require significant work.
>> 
>> In my opinion, "we have given up on IRIS" is the proper thing
>> to say.
> 
> Sad although probably right.   It was and remains, at least in
> my opinion, a nice piece of work.   That actually leads to
> another commend, which is that I'd much rather see a document
> like this say something equivalent to "overtaken by events" or
> "use no longer recommended" rather than "deprecated".
> 
> best,
>   john

I would agree on the majority opinion ; the wording doesn’t mAtter anymore, 

The majority option is to be respected ; 
For sure, if 
They offered collaboration and didn’t leave some ambiguity ; 
A lot or some wouldn’t have had mattered anymore;
 
> like this say something equivalent to "overtaken by events" or
> "use no longer recommended" rather than "deprecated".
> 
> best,
>   john

Well; they are all synonyms in this case; 
The facts not the Vocab ;
“Overtaken by events”was really a big loss of time;
To 4698, ( whom btw , 4698 , is the only news during all this time )

A Potential isn’t to be diminutive for whom who have it ;

Diminutive is the real (in order not to say only ) [ART],
Many of us here are gifted and dedicated to this kind of [ART],

I think 4698 has been oversteering ;
For some time ;
And neglected for oversteering ;

>>> That would require broadening the scope of this document
>>> somewhat and adjusting its title but, having skimmed through
>>> it, would not require significant work.

Is true;  constructive input doesn’t come when such a behavior comes from 
surrounding people;
The communities shouldn’t stay passive when one of them needs their help and 
support , and though passing through very difficult circumstances kept on being 
enthusiastic and dedicated ;

At the End of the Day ; too much time and energy was lost from 4698; and for 
him.

Well-being and peace of mind can only sort out nice things out of a beautiful 
mind;
When all the effort isn’t rewarded on any level; though support and backing up 
a fresh start within the community ; 
Not only those weren’t offered ;
They were suppressed and did nothing ;
Literally ;
Nothing but negativity and harmful  effect on personal and professional life;

If. Not mutual, and not clear, and of a negative effect, a result of isolation 
and loss of skill,
And there was always something fishy about it ,

4698 may have been manipulated, overloaded,but kept on being productive, the 
only damage is fatigue and loss of interest . 

It will never be a dropped course, but from now on mathematics will be ruling; 
taking should be as much as been given ,and effortless ; because the community 
, 
And if somebody cares,
Would be loosing quality input and a “friend “ of them loosing more energy than 
he should.

[ART]? The main looser; 

4698 would never consider opting out , but never digging that much and being 
taken for granted anymore,
Cheers
> 
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:20 -0500 Andrew Newton
 wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:13 AM, John C Klensin
>  wrote:
>> 
>> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I
>> agree with Frank and would go a step further.   While the
>> document indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for
>> address registry usage, as far as I know it has not been
>> deployed for anything else either and has become part of the
>> wreckage along the path to try to replace Whois for registry
>> database use.
> 
> My understanding is that DCHK did get deployed by two domain
> registries. I do not know if they still use it though.

Even if they do, a move to Historic and/or Obsolete doesn't
change their situation, it is just an implicit recommendation
that others should not rush out to deploy this or even actively
consider it as a option.  If something more nuanced is needed,
it is probably time to write an A/S and have this particular
registry/ subdomain removal be part of that.

>> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
>> (probably just recognizing what has happened historically),
>> then we should be formally obsoleting all of the IRIS
>> documents at the same time (and/or moving them to Historic)
>> so they are no longer listed as Proposed Standards and
>> implicitly recommended. That means at least RFC 4698 but also
>> 4414 and the original protocol specifications (3982-3983).
>> That would require broadening the scope of this document
>> somewhat and adjusting its title but, having skimmed through
>> it, would not require significant work.
> 
> In my opinion, "we have given up on IRIS" is the proper thing
> to say.

Sad although probably right.   It was and remains, at least in
my opinion, a nice piece of work.   That actually leads to
another commend, which is that I'd much rather see a document
like this say something equivalent to "overtaken by events" or
"use no longer recommended" rather than "deprecated".

best,
   john


___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[Patrick Mevzek]

On 2018-01-25 10:20 -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:

> My understanding is that DCHK did get deployed by two domain
> registries. I do not know if they still use it though.

It was deployed by .DE and .FR

.DE stopped it on December 2013:
https://www.denic.de/en/whats-new/news/article/shutdown-of-domain-check-dchk-lookup-service-as-of-3-december-2013/

.FR still runs it
(without any plan to stop it for what I am aware)

I am not aware of any other domain registries deployment.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[Andrew Newton]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:13 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:
>
> Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I agree
> with Frank and would go a step further.   While the document
> indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for address
> registry usage, as far as I know it has not been deployed for
> anything else either and has become part of the wreckage along
> the path to try to replace Whois for registry database use.

My understanding is that DCHK did get deployed by two domain
registries. I do not know if they still use it though.

>
> If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
> (probably just recognizing what has happened historically), then
> we should be formally obsoleting all of the IRIS documents at
> the same time (and/or moving them to Historic) so they are no
> longer listed as Proposed Standards and implicitly recommended.
> That means at least RFC 4698 but also 4414 and the original
> protocol specifications (3982-3983).  That would require
> broadening the scope of this document somewhat and adjusting its
> title but, having skimmed through it, would not require
> significant work.

In my opinion, "we have given up on IRIS" is the proper thing to say.

-andy

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] [art] New Version Notification for draft-hardie-iris-arpa-00.txt

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, January 25, 2018 14:55 +0100 Frank Ellermann
 wrote:

> On 22 January 2018, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> If you have thoughts
> 
> Maybe "obsoletes 4698" instead of only "updates 4698" would be
> clearer for readers of RFC 4698.

Ted,

Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I agree
with Frank and would go a step further.   While the document
indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for address
registry usage, as far as I know it has not been deployed for
anything else either and has become part of the wreckage along
the path to try to replace Whois for registry database use.

If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS"
(probably just recognizing what has happened historically), then
we should be formally obsoleting all of the IRIS documents at
the same time (and/or moving them to Historic) so they are no
longer listed as Proposed Standards and implicitly recommended.
That means at least RFC 4698 but also 4414 and the original
protocol specifications (3982-3983).  That would require
broadening the scope of this document somewhat and adjusting its
title but, having skimmed through it, would not require
significant work.

By contrast, if you believe that the ISOS protocols and the
other registries and identifiers are still relevant for
implementation and use, I think it would be helpful if this
document said that explicitly.   For example, you might
explicitly indicate that IRIS had additional applications (with
a reference or two) and that, unlike the address registries,
those are still in use and Recommended.

best,
   john


___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext