Many thanks to those who responded to the last call for this document.
There have been quite a few constructive comments and the Chairs do not believe
we have consensus to move forward.
Fortunately the authors agree and they have also agreed to take some time to
review the comments and the docu
Hello all,
The feedback received on this thread has been incredibly useful. Given the
level of work left to do, I’d like to request we withdraw it from WGLC status.
Thanks!
Heather Flanagan
Principal, Spherical Cow Consulting
h...@sphericalcowconsulting.com
sphericalcowconsulting.com
the-writer
gt;
>
> *From: *Tim Wicinski
> *Date: *Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:01 AM
> *To: *James Gould
> *Cc: *"Hollenbeck, Scott" , "st...@shinkuro.com"
> , "regext@ietf.org"
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] WGLC:
> draft-ietf-regext-
;Hollenbeck, Scott" , "st...@shinkuro.com"
, "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:28 AM Gould, James
mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote:
Tim,
The terms could change, but I hav
> *From: *Tim Wicinski
> *Date: *Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:10 AM
> *To: *James Gould
> *Cc: *"Hollenbeck, Scott" , "st...@shinkuro.com"
> , "regext@ietf.org"
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC:
> draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
>
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: Tim Wicinski
Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:10 AM
To: James Gould
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "st...@shinkuro.com"
, "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
Ja
to:st...@shinkuro.com>"
mailto:st...@shinkuro.com>>, James Gould
mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>"
mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC:
draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
S
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Fellow Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *"Hollenbeck, Scott&quo
Scott is right on the IANA registry bit. RFC7489 (DMARC) was not just
Informational but
Independent Stream (ISE) and it created a registry just fine.
Informational does make more sense in this case.
tim
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:24 PM Andrew Newton wrote:
> I've reviewed this draft and have
nbeck, Scott"
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:49 PM
To: "st...@shinkuro.com" , James Gould
Cc: "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
Steve, if the draft gives IANA instructions to create a registry, that’l
I've reviewed this draft and have a couple of questions and comments.
And with some of my questions, I may be reading this too literally, so
please forgive me in advance.
Section 2 paragraph 5 says:
"Note that the legal definition of any of the terms used in the data
dictionary, such as 'personall
point for
text to be added to the draft.
Scott
From: Steve Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:11 AM
To: Gould, James ; Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: regext@ietf.org; Steve Crocker
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
Caution: This email originated
James, Scott, et al,
The motivation for this proposal was to have a registry of available data
elements for everyone who is managing an Internet based registration system
to draw upon. An informational RFC would be a way to communicate the idea
of having such a registry but would not actually cau
I agree with Scott's feedback on the track being changed to Informational and
removal of the IANA Registry.
Why doesn't this draft match the approach taken io RFC 8499 for DNS
Terminology? The Registration System terms can certainly have overlap with the
DNS terms in RFC 8499, where the RFC
I'm aware of two other RFCs that also define terms like this: 4949 (security)
and 8499 (DNS). The intended status for this draft is "Standards Track". At
best, this should be Informational in the same way that 4949 is informational.
Neither of these RFCs creates a registry. As such, I don't see
Hello Heather, Steve,
Overall, this doc should prove useful to anyone embarking on creating or
evolving a registration protocol. While reviewing the latest draft, had some
observations/feedback (sorry for the delay):
Unless this doc, as-is, is intended for just the DNRs (Domain Name
Registries
This is a reminder to please indicate your support or no objection to the
publication of this document.
The Document Shepherd should take note that the WGLC for this document was
noted on the DNSOP mailing list. Thanks to Scott Hollenbeck for doing this and
making it relevant for them to consi
(forgot to cc regext)
Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit:
See also "domain name" in [RFC8499].
Should this not be "Domain name" (per 8499) ?
I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an
abbreviation which doesn't feel useful. B
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
Registration Data Dictionary
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary/03/
Please indicate your support or no objec
19 matches
Mail list logo
