I think this work is worth pursuing. But with a couple of caveats. 1) it's hard to change the wider community around "normative language" and so we have to set realistic goals for actually moving the marker in the wider community to what words people use. That doesn't mean it isn't worth being clear, but it would have to be taken as read people will continue to expect to use other language. Lets document terms but not expect there to be agreement in the wide to use them?
2) some marginalia in how the RIRs discuss things is hyper specific to one RIR even if the concept is similar in another RIR. The term "Local Internet Registry" or LIR really only has specific meaning in the RIPE region even if we all use it from time to time. The Term NIR only has specific meaning in APNIC, bound into how we structure. The analogous concept in the LACNIC region is really not identical. And, concepts like "portable" and "non-portable" addresses, PI/PI, Assignment/Allocation are not always well understood. I have some concerns these kinds of things will cause problems, and like cases exist inside the domain-registry world. I admit that from time to time I struggle with some nuances in "Registrar lock" -was it something I chose, or something done to me against my will (for instance) I agree with Jiankang that the similarity to the DNS terminology draft is unfortunate. I would stick to registration, distinct from DNS. REGEXT is about more than DNS registry, so the ontology here has to be about more than DNS too. What would it do to charter? Does it require consideration against charter goals? What would it do to the RDAP/EPP pace of work? This work spans both. I continue to find the pace of document movement between the two sub-classes confusing. This adds to the confusion perhaps? cheers -george _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
