I personally think it does too. At least I wrote the text to include those documents in scope. But since I’m not a native english speaker it would help to know if others read that text the same way too. And confirm it’s not too broad in scope too.
- -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 > Op 15 sep. 2018, om 03:32 heeft Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org> het > volgende geschreven: > > I think it does, but it would be great if the chairs could confirm. > > Regards, > Gustavo > > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of Gould, James > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 08:57 > To: jkol...@godaddy.com <mailto:jkol...@godaddy.com>; i...@antoin.nl > <mailto:i...@antoin.nl>; regext@ietf.org <mailto: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: > > 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? > 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 > > <image001.png> > > James Gould > Distinguished Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com <x-msg://1/jgo...@verisign.com> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of Jody Kolker <jkol...@godaddy.com <mailto:jkol...@godaddy.com>> > Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM > To: Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl <mailto:i...@antoin.nl>>, Registration > Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org <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 <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren > Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 9:20 AM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org > <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 > <alex.mayrhofer.i...@gmail.com <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 <p...@dotandco.com > <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 <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > <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
