Hi Gustavo, Thanks for the update and addressing my comments. I've cleared the discuss.
Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org> > Sent: 13 May 2020 00:17 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; Barry Leiba > <barryle...@computer.org> > Cc: 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) > > 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=VbweciUc > wYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-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=VbweciUc > wYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-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
