Hi Rob,
Updates in version 09. See,
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-09
Thank you for your feedback.
Regards,
Gustavo
On 5/12/20, 09:16, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Barry, Gustavo, all,
Thanks for your comments.
On the one hand, the scope of this document is tied to Domain Registries
(e.g. its title, and the bulk of the description), but on the other hand the
abstract and introduction indicate that the data escrow definitions can be used
for any data escrow, and it still seems to me that data escrow is just a
special form of backup. I.e., I can see that these two domains have the
potential to overlap over time and these terms could cause confusion.
However, it does appear that I'm in the rough, and I don't wish to
needlessly hold up this document.
I could probably live with a short paragraph in the introduction,
highlighting that these terms are used in the somewhat similar domain of backup
operations, but with different meanings, and hence readers should pay attention
to the precise definitions. E.g., perhaps something like:
This document defines terms for three types of deposit that are used in
data escrow: Full, Differential and Incremental. These same terms are also
commonly used in the related domain of data backups, but with different
definitions. Hence, readers are advised to read the terminology section
carefully to understand their precise meanings when used for data escrow.
Regards,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>
> Sent: 07 May 2020 18:37
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>
> Cc: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>;
> regext-cha...@ietf.org; James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com>;
> regext@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-data-esc...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-
> escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> I'm afraid I have to agree with Gustavo that the terms used here need
> to match what's used in the domain this is written for. It's often
> the case that things mean different things in different domains, and
> sometimes those domains are similar enough that we wish it weren't the
> case. When it is, that's sad... but.
>
> Unless someone in the working group wants to tell us that Gustavo is
> wrong and we should go with what Rob suggests, I think the discussion
> has been had. I *would* like to hear some input from the working
> group on this, though, before we make any final decisions.
>
> Barry
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <rwilton=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gustavo,
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org>
> > > Sent: 17 April 2020 00:59
> > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> > > Cc: draft-ietf-regext-data-esc...@ietf.org; regext-cha...@ietf.org;
> > > regext@ietf.org; James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Ext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-
> > > escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Thank you Robert,
> > >
> > > Comments inline, prefixed with GL -
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gustavo
> > >
> > > On 4/8/20, 10:04, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all
> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > > this
> > > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-
> > >
> 2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=V
> > > bweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=gZgTftWuC9SsZdq_QWTwb-
> > > T4RjxNiDq9i2krpdXgHfM&s=QHMiOWDTGvuiZh0DtVdWwx_J4DxECAFWGpr-Srux4pQ&e=
> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddata-
> > >
> 2Descrow_&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciU
> > > cwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=gZgTftWuC9SsZdq_QWTwb-
> > > T4RjxNiDq9i2krpdXgHfM&s=YhAtC7C7hDwiSnfUvetOd_lI7t6Q5KkhtITQ9Vv9OXE&e=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I spotted some issues with the terminology and the description of
> the
> > > algorithm
> > > that I would like you to please address.
> > >
> > > Section 2: Terminology
> > >
> > > The definitions provided for "Differential" vs "Incremental" are
> the
> > > opposite
> > > to their standard meaning in backups. The term definitions should
> be
> > > reversed
> > > to align with the common vernacular. I.e. differential is the
> diff
> > > against the
> > > last full backup, incremental is the backup since the backup (of
> any
> > > type) was
> > > performed.
> > >
> > > GL - The definition of differential in the draft complies with the
> legal
> > > use in the gTLD space. The amount of work required to make this
> change,
> > > make it unrealistic. It's worth mentioning that data escrow is not the
> > > same as a backup.
> > >
> >
> > I don't see a huge difference between a remote backup vs data escrow.
> E.g., if I use an online backup service then it seems that they are
> storing data securely on my behalf that I can subsequently recover if
> required. It feels like the concepts are so very similar that using the
> same set of terms with different meanings could easily cause confusion.
> >
> > The choice here is between having
> > (i) a protocol that matches legal data escrow definitions but could
> easily be confused by people who see this as a type of remote backup
> > (ii) a protocol specification that matches the widely used common
> definitions for these terms (e.g.
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Incremental-5Fbackup&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=1L8mecOmXYHf-S9_N59ShLSZlCtF2CNXAow6FvYCD-I&s=IF3CR_PqF7CusnR8FLweNe6ktIM2W75cVORcdw8ILoI&e=
,
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Differential-5Fbackup&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=1L8mecOmXYHf-S9_N59ShLSZlCtF2CNXAow6FvYCD-I&s=kp2_C7D5tVWMc9vG1WRHtEjmXycwluQCWa6IriCIObc&e=
), but that is opposite
> to the legal definitions.
> >
> > It seems to me that the legal definitions are really self-contained
> within their documents, and potentially could be updated over time.
> However, I see no way that we can convince the world in general to reverse
> their understanding/usage of these terms, and hence if you are to use
> these terms, I still believe that they should align to their common usage
> rather than the legal definitions.
> >
> > Of course, an alternative solution would be to define and use completely
> different terms for the incremental and differential deposits, e.g. full
> deposit, full-delta deposit, minimal-delta deposit.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
