Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

2018-09-14 Thread Gustavo Lozano 
I think it does, but it would be great if the chairs could confirm.

 

Regards,

Gustavo

 

From: regext  On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 08:57
To: jkol...@godaddy.com; i...@antoin.nl; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [Ext] Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

 

Related to bullet #2, I’m hoping that it addresses file formats such as:

 

1.  Data Escrow File Format (draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow and 
draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping) 

a.   This format is associated with data escrow deposits from registration 
entities (registry, registrar, privacy and proxy services) to data escrow 
providers.  Can a data escrow provider be considered a registration entity?   

2.  Data Set File Format (draft-gould-regext-dataset) 

a.   This format is primarily meant to be between registrar and registry; 
although a 3rd party can generate a signed data set.

  

—

 

JG




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

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

  Verisign.com 

 

From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> > on 
behalf of Jody Kolker mailto:jkol...@godaddy.com> >
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM
To: Antoin Verschuren mailto:i...@antoin.nl> >, Registration 
Protocols Extensions mailto:regext@ietf.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

 

Since EPP and RDAP is included in this paragraph:

 

<< 

The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that

describe the following types of information exchanged between entities

involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or 

EPP protocols:

>> 

 

Can this paragraph be updated to:

<< 

*Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or 

 configuration options between registration entities.

*Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities.

*Technical guidance for registration processes between registration entities.

 

>> 

 

The reason for changing the 2nd bullet “*Data formats for files exchanged 
between registration entities that 

 need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.”  Is that the data reports 
are not downloaded via EPP or RDAP.

 

Thanks,

Jody Kolker

 

From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> > On 
Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions mailto:regext@ietf.org> 
>
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

 

Alex,Patrick,

 

Thank you for your comments. You made some good suggestions.

I agree the scope of the bulletpoints are not that clear and not scoped narrow 
enough for people not in this working group and not knowing which documents we 
discussed.

How about changing the last paragraph with bulletpoints to this:

 

---

The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that

describe the following types of information exchanged between entities

involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or 

EPP protocols:

 

*Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or 

 configuration options regarding EPP and RDAP use.

*Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities that 

 need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.

*Technical guidance for registration processes that are supported by 

 EPP or RDAP.

—

 

To explain out thinking:

The “registry mapping” and similar documents will fall under bulletpoint 1

The draft-gould-regext-dataset and similar documents will fall under 
bulletpoint 2

The “dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol” and similar documents will fall under 
bulletpoint 3

 

If you agree to this text, than we will change that in the version we resend to 
the IESG for reconsideration.

 

- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392

 

 

 





Op 3 sep. 2018, om 17:31 heeft Alexander Mayrhofer 
mailto:alex.mayrhofer.i...@gmail.com> > het 
volgende geschreven:

 

Hello everyone,

tl;dr - i do agree with all what Patrick said - more inline

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:46 PM Patrick Mevzek mailto:p...@dotandco.com> > wrote:



And I still think it is too broad, especially "Data formats for files"
(which files? what data? why the format needs a specification and a working 
group?).
"Registry mapping" and "Registry transition" will probably seem obscure to 
anyone
outside of the working group. I am myself not even sure what it covers or not.


I do agree to these points. For a charter, i think the functional area
would be required, and if there wasn't a draft names "registry
mapping", i wouldn't know what it meant (quite blunt: would this
covering the creation of a geographic map of all EPP/RDAP accessible
registries? ;)

Some (hopefully more productive) thoughts:

"Data format for files" -> Data format, yes, but only in the scope of
EPP/RDAP registries and between the involved parties.

Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

2018-09-14 Thread Antoin Verschuren 
Op 14 sep. 2018, om 17:14 heeft Jody Kolker  het volgende 
geschreven:
> 
> Since EPP and RDAP is included in this paragraph:
> 
> <<
> The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that
> describe the following types of information exchanged between entities
> involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or
> EPP protocols:
> >>
> 
> Can this paragraph be updated to:
> <<
> *Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or
>  configuration options between registration entities.
> *Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities.
> *Technical guidance for registration processes between registration entities.
> 
> >>
> 
> The reason for changing the 2nd bullet “*Data formats for files exchanged 
> between registration entities that
>  need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.”  Is that the data reports 
> are not downloaded via EPP or RDAP.

But the data is extracted from the database that is filled by EPP right? So 
it’s “EPP data”.
True, you’ll need some imagination, and I also don’t know how to phrase that 
better right now, but I think that we want to prevent that  f.e. invoice 
formats, advertising text, contracts or any other god knows what non protocol 
paper work between registries/registrars/registrants will be in scope as long 
as the entity uses some system that runs EPP or RDAP. Do you agree that that 
may be in scope by the text that you propose and that that would be undesirable?

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

2018-09-14 Thread Gould, James 
Related to bullet #2, I’m hoping that it addresses file formats such as:


  1.  Data Escrow File Format (draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow and 
draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping)
 *   This format is associated with data escrow deposits from registration 
entities (registry, registrar, privacy and proxy services) to data escrow 
providers.  Can a data escrow provider be considered a registration entity?
  2.  Data Set File Format (draft-gould-regext-dataset)
 *   This format is primarily meant to be between registrar and registry; 
although a 3rd party can generate a signed data set.

—

JG

[cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]

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

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

Verisign.com

From: regext  on behalf of Jody Kolker 

Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM
To: Antoin Verschuren , Registration Protocols Extensions 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

Since EPP and RDAP is included in this paragraph:

<<
The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that
describe the following types of information exchanged between entities
involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or
EPP protocols:
>>

Can this paragraph be updated to:
<<
*Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or
 configuration options between registration entities.
*Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities.
*Technical guidance for registration processes between registration entities.

>>

The reason for changing the 2nd bullet “*Data formats for files exchanged 
between registration entities that
 need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.”  Is that the data reports 
are not downloaded via EPP or RDAP.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker

From: regext  On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC redux: REGEXT working group charter

Alex,Patrick,

Thank you for your comments. You made some good suggestions.
I agree the scope of the bulletpoints are not that clear and not scoped narrow 
enough for people not in this working group and not knowing which documents we 
discussed.
How about changing the last paragraph with bulletpoints to this:

---
The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that
describe the following types of information exchanged between entities
involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or
EPP protocols:

*Uniform representation formats for publishing local policy or
 configuration options regarding EPP and RDAP use.
*Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities that
 need insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.
*Technical guidance for registration processes that are supported by
 EPP or RDAP.
—

To explain out thinking:
The “registry mapping” and similar documents will fall under bulletpoint 1
The draft-gould-regext-dataset and similar documents will fall under 
bulletpoint 2
The “dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol” and similar documents will fall under 
bulletpoint 3

If you agree to this text, than we will change that in the version we resend to 
the IESG for reconsideration.

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392






Op 3 sep. 2018, om 17:31 heeft Alexander Mayrhofer 
mailto:alex.mayrhofer.i...@gmail.com>> het 
volgende geschreven:

Hello everyone,

tl;dr - i do agree with all what Patrick said - more inline

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:46 PM Patrick Mevzek 
mailto:p...@dotandco.com>> wrote:


And I still think it is too broad, especially "Data formats for files"
(which files? what data? why the format needs a specification and a working 
group?).
"Registry mapping" and "Registry transition" will probably seem obscure to 
anyone
outside of the working group. I am myself not even sure what it covers or not.

I do agree to these points. For a charter, i think the functional area
would be required, and if there wasn't a draft names "registry
mapping", i wouldn't know what it meant (quite blunt: would this
covering the creation of a geographic map of all EPP/RDAP accessible
registries? ;)

Some (hopefully more productive) thoughts:

"Data format for files" -> Data format, yes, but only in the scope of
EPP/RDAP registries and between the involved parties. Limited to
frequent cases of such data exchange.

"Registry mapping" -> Representation of configuration options for
EPP/RDAP registries.

"Registry transition" -> not sure what we should standardize here... a
process? Data beyond escrow?

I understand the intention behind all these, but it seems to me those
reflect milestones rather than an abstract charter strategy.

best,
Alex

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