Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Included below is the final list of documents to be considered for 
adoption and the establishment of a milestone (date by which the 
document will be submitted for publication).  For those documents that 
are already working group documents we will only need to establish a 
milestone.


There are 21 choices.  After we select our “top 5” documents we will 
establish milestones and get to work.


Shortly you will see a Doodle poll (sorry if you don’t like the 
technology choice but it’s free, relatively easy to use, and 
straightforward to learn if you’ve never used it before).  Please take 
the time to select from 1-5 documents that meet the following criterion 
for you.


* You support the advancement of the specification onto the standards 
track.


Thanks!

Antoin and Jim


DOCUMENT LIST:

Registry Reporting Repository
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Unavailable Domain Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/

Third Party DNS Operator to Registrar/Registry
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol/

Validate
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-validate/

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

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

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Patrick,

I want to thank you for your detailed and thorough comments.

First let me say that this working group has a small set of active 
participants, less than 10 at most and less than 5 on average.  So, 
you’re not in a minority since every voice is quite important to this 
working group.


Second, the chairs agree with all of your comments.  However, we also 
believe that the process we’re proposing will achieve the same goals 
you are seeking to achieve.  We’re just choosing to do it with less 
structure and formality, or perhaps different structure.


Every document in this group gets traction from one person, the author.  
Almost no document in this group gets traction from any kind of 
majority, i.e., only a few people are interested.  For example, the 
“fees” document got a lot of attention and a lot of support.  This 
is rare in this group.  The “org” documents got a lot of attention 
because there were concerns.  When the concerns got addressed people 
didn’t support the documents so much as they just didn’t object.  So 
it goes with most documents in this group.


We do not expect everyone to read 20+ documents and pick the 5 
“best” on their merits.  What we expect is everyone to simply select 
the 1-5 documents they happen to care about.


With that information the Chairs will consider many of the other 
criteria you mention to break what will no doubt be many ties in the 
selection process, and propose priorities for document adoption to the 
working group based on our assessment.


We could be wrong but it seems like the process we’re proposing is 
well-suited to the make-up of this working group.  If it fails then 
we’ll just try something else.


Thanks again for your attention!

Jim




On 11 Dec 2018, at 2:44, Patrick Mevzek wrote:


Hello,

Sorry to be probably again in the minority and the dissonant voice 
here, but I do not understand this:


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, at 10:49, James Galvin wrote:

The purpose of the list was to include everything that exists or that
has passed through the working group.  I have to admit it was more 
than

I expected when we created the list.

In any case, the right thing to do is simply not vote for any 
document

you do not want to move forward.


To me, this process feel completely backwards :-(

As described, it makes sense to me if:
- we have a wide community of people
- with far enough time on their hands
- to read ~20 technical documents
- compare their merits
- and finally select 5 to "promote" to push to the working group
- of course all in some specific tight deadline.

I believe we are absolutely in the opposite case and I fear the 
outcome of this process will not have the expected results.


First, I think the burden should be on the authors to at least present 
the document on the list (which is not even the case for some of 
them), in order to convince people that there is indeed a problem to 
solve (first important point) and that their solution or beginning of 
a solution makes sense. If their arguments are clear and correct, 
people would then be enthousiastic to add them as working group 
elements and work on them.


Instead by just trying to be exhaustive and let people choose among 
everything you achieve two things:
- you show each document as similar to others in term of usefulness 
that is maturity, scope of the problem, precise solution to it, etc. 
(and they are obviously not all equal on these points)
- you accept that documents are basically worked on elsewhere, never 
discussed here, and coming late (which means it may be more difficult 
to work, as a group, on them because many design choices would already 
be set in stone by then). Which has to me the very unfortunate result 
that the working group just becomes an IETF stamp for an EPP 
extension.
Even if the same people as here are working on the document elsewhere 
before presenting it here, what is then the value or added value of 
this working group, if it is basically just to make sure it fits an 
RFC structure, follows all guidelines, register what needs to be 
registered at IANA, etc. which is basically no more an engineering 
task but merely an editorial one?
This is not the only reason but I think this also explains in the very 
low participation we see and the difficulty to find editors, 
shepherds, etc. (and of course it is a vicious circle as the low 
participation here could be taken by some as an indication that they 
should work on their documents elsewhere to make progress).


Second, beside authors of course which are already motivated to do so, 
anyone may be free to promote or vote on any document of couse to be a 
working group document, but what would that mean (for the working 
group and the specific documents)?


Instead, why not do like it is done in other working groups and ask 
people to speak for a document **if and only if** they kind of 
informally pledge to work on it in some way which may mean:

- reading it, and the future other versions
- 

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Thanks for this Jim.  I’ve removed IDN Table Mapping but I have a 
question for you.


If that document is tightly coupled with the “idnmap” document, why 
are you keeping it “active” (last updated two months ago) when the 
“idnmap” document is expired (3 years ago)?


Thanks,

Jim



On 10 Dec 2018, at 11:57, Gould, James wrote:


Jim,

The following is already a REGEXT working group document:

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

The following can be moved to the ON HOLD PENDING EXTERNAL ACTIONS 
list:


Login Security Policy (Extension of Registry Mapping)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy/

The following can be removed:

IDN Table Mapping - This draft would be needed if 
draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap progressed as a working group document.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-idn-table/

—

JG



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com 

On 12/10/18, 11:43 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" 
 wrote:


Thanks to Scott, James, and Tobias.  The updated document list is
included below.


On 7 Dec 2018, at 9:38, James Galvin wrote:

> Included below is the list of potential documents and topics 
this
> working group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is 
to
> make sure we have a complete list.  We are asking folks to 
review this
> list and make sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing 
one
> week for this review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During 
this time

> please do ask questions about documents or topics.
>
> The next step will be for the working group members to indicate 
their
> top 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is 
the
> maximum number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a 
time.
> If there is discussion to be had about this number please start 
a new

> email thread and we will see where it goes.
>
> We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar 
with
> this.  We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be 
asked
> to select up to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, 
or
> IfNeedBe.  You can use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents 
that
> you support but not as your top 5.  We will open this Doodle 
poll
> before the Christmas holiday and leave it open through Friday, 
11

> January.  That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and
> vacation time that many folks will have during this time.
>
> Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce 
working

> group adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.
> It’s going to be a busy year, 2019!

Registry Reporting Repository

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Unavailable Domain Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Login Security Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[Patrick Mevzek]

Hello,

Sorry to be probably again in the minority and the dissonant voice here, but I 
do not understand this:

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, at 10:49, James Galvin wrote:
> The purpose of the list was to include everything that exists or that 
> has passed through the working group.  I have to admit it was more than 
> I expected when we created the list.
> 
> In any case, the right thing to do is simply not vote for any document 
> you do not want to move forward.

To me, this process feel completely backwards :-(

As described, it makes sense to me if:
- we have a wide community of people
- with far enough time on their hands
- to read ~20 technical documents
- compare their merits
- and finally select 5 to "promote" to push to the working group
- of course all in some specific tight deadline.

I believe we are absolutely in the opposite case and I fear the outcome of this 
process will not have the expected results.

First, I think the burden should be on the authors to at least present the 
document on the list (which is not even the case for some of them), in order to 
convince people that there is indeed a problem to solve (first important point) 
and that their solution or beginning of a solution makes sense. If their 
arguments are clear and correct, people would then be enthousiastic to add them 
as working group elements and work on them.

Instead by just trying to be exhaustive and let people choose among everything 
you achieve two things:
- you show each document as similar to others in term of usefulness that is 
maturity, scope of the problem, precise solution to it, etc. (and they are 
obviously not all equal on these points)
- you accept that documents are basically worked on elsewhere, never discussed 
here, and coming late (which means it may be more difficult to work, as a 
group, on them because many design choices would already be set in stone by 
then). Which has to me the very unfortunate result that the working group just 
becomes an IETF stamp for an EPP extension.
Even if the same people as here are working on the document elsewhere before 
presenting it here, what is then the value or added value of this working 
group, if it is basically just to make sure it fits an RFC structure, follows 
all guidelines, register what needs to be registered at IANA, etc. which is 
basically no more an engineering task but merely an editorial one?
This is not the only reason but I think this also explains in the very low 
participation we see and the difficulty to find editors, shepherds, etc. (and 
of course it is a vicious circle as the low participation here could be taken 
by some as an indication that they should work on their documents elsewhere to 
make progress).

Second, beside authors of course which are already motivated to do so, anyone 
may be free to promote or vote on any document of couse to be a working group 
document, but what would that mean (for the working group and the specific 
documents)?

Instead, why not do like it is done in other working groups and ask people to 
speak for a document **if and only if** they kind of informally pledge to work 
on it in some way which may mean:
- reading it, and the future other versions
- being at least able to assess if the document is good enough to go to WGLC 
for example
and/or to summarize it broadly (problem to be solved, strong points of the 
solution offered, points remaining to discuss, other options)
- provide feedback, if possible, at various levels (either just alternate ideas 
or specific detailed implementation point to work on, etc.)
- act as an editor (non-technical feedback)
- pledge or express strong interest into implementating it or putting enough 
energy to convince a third party to implement it
- identify that it may be related to some other kind of document (in this 
working group or not), or that other actors may already have solved the same 
problem or working on it, etc. and trying to liaise between everyone
- etc. (there are many ways to participate, sometimes just sending emails to 
the authors to ask where they are at, what is blocking, etc. can give the 
authors a boost of motivation - seeing that others care too about the document 
- to work further on it)

This would also clearly show interest for it: if people are saying "yes, I 
agree to spend some of my time making sure this documents advance as an IETF 
document" then it proves real usefulness and support by the "community" for it. 
A very useful information to be added later on in the shepherd write-up ;-)


Also the discussion started already previously (but did not go very far I 
think) and I think we (I) suggested already that having an Implementation 
Section or at least clear intentions to work on implementations or asking 
others to work on some could be used, among other factors, as a basis to see if 
a document should be considered by the working group or not.

To be honest right now I prefer to devote the little personal time I have to 
try 

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Thanks to Scott, James, and Tobias.  The updated document list is 
included below.



On 7 Dec 2018, at 9:38, James Galvin wrote:

Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this 
working group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to 
make sure we have a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this 
list and make sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing one 
week for this review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time 
please do ask questions about documents or topics.


The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their 
top 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the 
maximum number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.  
If there is discussion to be had about this number please start a new 
email thread and we will see where it goes.


We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with 
this.  We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked 
to select up to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or 
IfNeedBe.  You can use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that 
you support but not as your top 5.  We will open this Doodle poll 
before the Christmas holiday and leave it open through Friday, 11 
January.  That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and 
vacation time that many folks will have during this time.


Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working 
group adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  
It’s going to be a busy year, 2019!


Registry Reporting Repository
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Unavailable Domain Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Login Security Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/

Third Party DNS Operator to Registrar/Registry
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol/

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

IDN Table Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-idn-table/


ON HOLD PENDING EXTERNAL ACTIONS

Launch Phase Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/

Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/


Antoin and Jim

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

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[Tobias Sattler]

Hi Jim,

Even if only the the top 5 have to get adopted, please add Registry Unavailable 
Domain Report 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/
 

 just for the record.

Thanks,
Tobias

> On 7. Dec 2018, at 15:38, James Galvin  wrote:
> 
> Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this working 
> group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to make sure we have 
> a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this list and make sure we 
> have not missed anything.  We are allowing one week for this review, until 
> Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time please do ask questions about 
> documents or topics.
> 
> The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their top 5 
> choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the maximum number of 
> milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.  If there is discussion 
> to be had about this number please start a new email thread and we will see 
> where it goes.
> 
> We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with this.  
> We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked to select up to 5 
> documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or IfNeedBe.  You can use the 
> IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that you support but not as your top 5. 
>  We will open this Doodle poll before the Christmas holiday and leave it open 
> through Friday, 11 January.  That should be plenty of time to get past 
> holiday and vacation time that many folks will have during this time.
> 
> Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working group 
> adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  It’s going to be a 
> busy year, 2019!
> 
> Registry Mapping
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/
> 
> Registry Reporting Repository
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/
> 
> Registry Reporting Structure
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/
> 
> Domain Fee Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/
> 
> Registry Transaction Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/
> 
> Registry Domain Inventory Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/
> 
> Registry Domain Drop Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report
> 
> Registry Maintenance Notifications
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/
> 
> Unhandled Namespaces
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces
> 
> Change Poll
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll
> 
> RDAP Search
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/
> 
> Data Set File Format
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/
> 
> Launch Phase Policy
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/
> 
> Login Security
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/
> 
> Antoin and Jim
> 
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

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

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[Roger D Carney]

Good Morning,

Please add https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-validate/.


Thanks
Roger

-Original Message-
From: regext  On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 10:19 AM
To: gal...@elistx.com; regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

Jim,

Thanks for putting the list together and I look forward to the Doodle poll.  

You can remove the following drafts from the list for now until we address the 
IPR with draft-gould-carney-regext-registry:

Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/

Launch Phase Policy (Extension of Registry Mapping)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/

I would add the data escrow drafts to the list:

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/


I'm in the process of updating the Data Set File Format draft 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/ to support a 
report file definition, in addition to the existing bulk operation file 
defintion.  The draft will support an extensible set of file definitions, so if 
new file definitions are needed the draft can be used.  The definition can be 
in a separate file from the data, which is similar to the CSV approach in the 
data escrow drafts, or may be combined in the same file as the data, as 
currently defined in the existing version of draft-gould-regext-dataset.  The 
field definitions (domain, host, contact, registrar) can be reused across many 
types of definition files.  The meta-data about the files can be extensible - 
the meta-data for a bulk operation (i.e., bulk command and sub-command, client 
identifier, creation date) is different from the meta-data for a report (i.e., 
report type and sub-type, date or date-range, frequency, tld or tlds, account). 
 Support for a standard report definition file would help in formally defining 
the meta-data and format of any report.  This would help the registrars to 
automate the consumption of any report.  An IANA registry could be setup to 
register report identifiers and the associated format definitions for both 
custom and standardized reports.  This draft represents an opportunity for the 
working group to create a more generic solution for handling reports and bulk 
operations.  

—
 
JG



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com  

On 12/7/18, 9:38 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" 
 wrote:

Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this 
working group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to make 
sure we have a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this list 
and make sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing one week for 
this review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time please do 
ask questions about documents or topics.

The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their 
top 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the 
maximum number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.  
If there is discussion to be had about this number please start a new 
email thread and we will see where it goes.

We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with 
this.  We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked to 
select up to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or 
IfNeedBe.  You can use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that 
you support but not as your top 5.  We will open this Doodle poll before 
the Christmas holiday and leave it open through Friday, 11 January.  
That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and vacation time that 
many folks will have during this time.

Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working group 
adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  It’s going 
to be a busy year, 2019!

Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/

Registry Reporting Repository

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[Gould, James]

Jim,

Thanks for putting the list together and I look forward to the Doodle poll.  

You can remove the following drafts from the list for now until we address the 
IPR with draft-gould-carney-regext-registry:

Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/

Launch Phase Policy (Extension of Registry Mapping)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/

I would add the data escrow drafts to the list:

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/


I'm in the process of updating the Data Set File Format draft 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/ to support a 
report file definition, in addition to the existing bulk operation file 
defintion.  The draft will support an extensible set of file definitions, so if 
new file definitions are needed the draft can be used.  The definition can be 
in a separate file from the data, which is similar to the CSV approach in the 
data escrow drafts, or may be combined in the same file as the data, as 
currently defined in the existing version of draft-gould-regext-dataset.  The 
field definitions (domain, host, contact, registrar) can be reused across many 
types of definition files.  The meta-data about the files can be extensible - 
the meta-data for a bulk operation (i.e., bulk command and sub-command, client 
identifier, creation date) is different from the meta-data for a report (i.e., 
report type and sub-type, date or date-range, frequency, tld or tlds, account). 
 Support for a standard report definition file would help in formally defining 
the meta-data and format of any report.  This would help the registrars to 
automate the consumption of any report.  An IANA registry could be setup to 
register report identifiers and the associated format definitions for both 
custom and standardized reports.  This draft represents an opportunity for the 
working group to create a more generic solution for handling reports and bulk 
operations.  

—
 
JG



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com  

On 12/7/18, 9:38 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" 
 wrote:

Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this 
working group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to make 
sure we have a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this list 
and make sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing one week for 
this review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time please do 
ask questions about documents or topics.

The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their 
top 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the 
maximum number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.  
If there is discussion to be had about this number please start a new 
email thread and we will see where it goes.

We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with 
this.  We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked to 
select up to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or 
IfNeedBe.  You can use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that 
you support but not as your top 5.  We will open this Doodle poll before 
the Christmas holiday and leave it open through Friday, 11 January.  
That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and vacation time that 
many folks will have during this time.

Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working group 
adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  It’s going 
to be a busy year, 2019!

Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/

Registry Reporting Repository

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Thanks Scott for the quick response!  My bad.  I copy-and-pasted the 
wrong list.




On 7 Dec 2018, at 10:01, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:


draft-ietf-regext-change-poll is already a WG document.


More importantly, it’s already been submitted for publication.  
Dropped from the list below.



Please drop draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex. There hasn't been 
any significant support expressed for the concept, so the authors are 
inclined to let it go for now.


The purpose of the list was to include everything that exists or that 
has passed through the working group.  I have to admit it was more than 
I expected when we created the list.


In any case, the right thing to do is simply not vote for any document 
you do not want to move forward.





Please add draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid.


It seems I grabbed the wrong list of documents.  There were others that 
were missing too.  The list below should now be complete.


Thanks again,

Jim





Scott


-Original Message-
From: regext  On Behalf Of James Galvin
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] list of documents to consider for 
working

group adoption

Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this 
working
group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to make sure 
we
have a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this list and 
make

sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing one week for this
review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time please do 
ask

questions about documents or topics.

The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their 
top

5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the maximum
number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.
If there is discussion to be had about this number please start a new
email thread and we will see where it goes.

We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with 
this.
We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked to 
select up
to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or IfNeedBe.  You 
can
use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that you support but 
not as
your top 5.  We will open this Doodle poll before the Christmas 
holiday

and leave it open through Friday, 11 January.
That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and vacation time 
that

many folks will have during this time.

Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working 
group
adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  It’s 
going to

be a busy year, 2019!


Registry Reporting Repository
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Launch Phase Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/

Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Login Security Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Third Party DNS Operator to Registrar/Registry
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol/

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

IDN Table Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-idn-table/

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

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

draft-ietf-regext-change-poll is already a WG document.

Please drop draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex. There hasn't been any 
significant support expressed for the concept, so the authors are inclined to 
let it go for now.

Please add draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid.

Scott

> -Original Message-
> From: regext  On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 9:39 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] list of documents to consider for working
> group adoption
>
> Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this working
> group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to make sure we
> have a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this list and make
> sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing one week for this
> review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time please do ask
> questions about documents or topics.
>
> The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their top
> 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the maximum
> number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.
> If there is discussion to be had about this number please start a new
> email thread and we will see where it goes.
>
> We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with this.
> We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked to select up
> to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or IfNeedBe.  You can
> use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that you support but not as
> your top 5.  We will open this Doodle poll before the Christmas holiday
> and leave it open through Friday, 11 January.
> That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and vacation time that
> many folks will have during this time.
>
> Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working group
> adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  It’s going to
> be a busy year, 2019!
>
> Registry Mapping
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/
>
> Registry Reporting Repository
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-
> reporting-repo/
>
> Registry Reporting Structure
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-
> structure/
>
> Domain Fee Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/
>
> Registry Transaction Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-
> report/
>
> Registry Domain Inventory Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-
> report/
>
> Registry Domain Drop Report
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report
>
> Registry Maintenance Notifications
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/
>
> Unhandled Namespaces
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-
> namespaces
>
> Change Poll
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll
>
> RDAP Search
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/
>
> Data Set File Format
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/
>
> Launch Phase Policy
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/
>
> Login Security
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Included below is the list of potential documents and topics this 
working group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is to make 
sure we have a complete list.  We are asking folks to review this list 
and make sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing one week for 
this review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During this time please do 
ask questions about documents or topics.


The next step will be for the working group members to indicate their 
top 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is the 
maximum number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a time.  
If there is discussion to be had about this number please start a new 
email thread and we will see where it goes.


We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar with 
this.  We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be asked to 
select up to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, or 
IfNeedBe.  You can use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents that 
you support but not as your top 5.  We will open this Doodle poll before 
the Christmas holiday and leave it open through Friday, 11 January.  
That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and vacation time that 
many folks will have during this time.


Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce working group 
adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.  It’s going 
to be a busy year, 2019!


Registry Mapping
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/

Registry Reporting Repository
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Change Poll
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Launch Phase Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-launch-policy/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Antoin and Jim

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