Hi Linlin, I did not know you waited on my to give feedback on optimizing the drafts. Regarding the remarks I gave you about the 'org' extension, you can apply what you suggested.
I also had a question about the roles and the use of the linked status. It would be better in my opinion to explicitly mention that somewhere or to give an example. I turn back to you for the review of the org-ext draft later. Kind regards Pieter > On 24 May 2018, at 04:07, Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn> wrote: > > Dear Patrick, > During the WGLC, the drafts were updated from version 02 to 06 to response > the comments on the mailing list. We are now waiting for our shepherd to give > some feedbacks to optimize them. I think it is better to follow the version > 06 of the org drafts if you have any comments. > As for the role definition, I think the generic organization way decided that > we need to have a "role". You can trace the reseller drafts that there was no > "role" element at all. Because we don't need a "role" to distinguish > different types of organizations. The "Role Values Registry" was also > disccused on the mailing list and got most people's support. > > Regards, > Linlin > zhoulin...@cnnic.cn <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn> > > From: Gould, James <mailto:jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Date: 2018-05-23 20:05 > To: Pieter Vandepitte <mailto:pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be>; Patrick > Mevzek <mailto:p...@dotandco.com> > CC: regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 > I would like to understand the concern around the use of the roles. There > are cases where an organization can play multiple roles (registrar, privacy > proxy, dns provider, etc.) that helps defined what kind of links can be made > to it. The roles on the links between the objects and the organization is > needed to qualify the type of relationship that exists between the object and > the organization. When the draft only dealt with the reseller, there was a > single role. When the working group agreed to define a more generic > organization object for multiple purposes, the concept of the role was needed > to support it. > > > — > JG > > > > James Gould > Distinguished Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > On 5/23/18, 7:36 AM, "regext on behalf of Pieter Vandepitte" > <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be> wrote: > > Chairs, > > Do we postpone the submission to IESG or do I continue my write-up? > > @Patrick, did you have time in mean time to catch up? How would you like > the draft to be changed in order to support it? I guess it's the fact that > roles are defined as properties of the organization and at the same time as > properties of the link? > > Kind regards > > Pieter > > > On 22 May 2018, at 08:57, Pieter Vandepitte > <pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Other thoughts? I think it's important as document shepherd to know > whether we should move on or not. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Pieter > > > >> On 21 May 2018, at 05:19, Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 15:32, James Galvin wrote: > >>> With that, version 06 of this document has been published and the > chairs > >>> are declaring WGLC closed. The document is now ready for submission > to > >>> IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. > >> > >> Isn't that a little rushed? > >> > >>> From a quick search I have found about only 2 explicit mention of > support of this document, from Pieter and Scott (as for myself I can not say > I explicitely support it because I am still uneasy by the need for it or not > seeing it and still not understanding some part of it like all the "role" > part). > >> > >> Also the document went into so many iterations during the period that > it was basicaly impossible to follow > >> (one night I have tried reviewing its newest version by implementing > it in my client... to find out in the morning that a new version went out so > I kind of decided to stop giving it my time before it stabilizes in some > way); some new comments even just popped out on the mailing-list yesterday. > >> > >> So I feel uneasy process-wise. Based on the amount of iterations > during WGLC it looks like to me that there is at least still some work needed > on it, and I am not sure its current version correspond really to the working > group consensus. > >> > >> The above applies the same way for the two "organization" documents. > >> > >> -- > >> Patrick Mevzek > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 mailing list > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
