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