George, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I look forward to responses from others. I’m certainly open to changes that improve clarity and/or usability.
Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 19, 2021, at 9:42 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
