James, Scott, et al, The motivation for this proposal was to have a registry of available data elements for everyone who is managing an Internet based registration system to draw upon. An informational RFC would be a way to communicate the idea of having such a registry but would not actually cause one to come into existence.
At present, each registration system defines its own terms. There is a huge amount of overlap in terminology and meaning. The point of having a registry of terms is to eliminate or reduce duplication. The existence of a registry of available data elements does *not* mean that every registry has to use all of the data elements. Thanks, Steve On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:02 AM Gould, James <jgould= 40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I agree with Scott's feedback on the track being changed to Informational > and removal of the IANA Registry. > > Why doesn't this draft match the approach taken io RFC 8499 for DNS > Terminology? The Registration System terms can certainly have overlap with > the DNS terms in RFC 8499, where the RFC 8499 reference can be made, but > the definition is catered to registration systems. I see value with the > terms in RFC 8499 for reference within drafts. I would like to see the > same value of terms defined in draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary. The term > definitions need to have adequate detail with relevant references made to > the registration RFCs (e.g., RFC 5730 - 5733. 9022), which is not currently > the case. My recommendation is to refer to this as Registration > Terminology instead of Registration Data Dictionary, following the approach > taken in RFC 8499 for DNS terminology, and removing the definition of an > IANA registry. > > Thanks, > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > > > On 2/14/23, 8:14 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" < > regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto: > 40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > > > I'm aware of two other RFCs that also define terms like this: 4949 > (security) > and 8499 (DNS). The intended status for this draft is "Standards Track". > At > best, this should be Informational in the same way that 4949 is > informational. > > > Neither of these RFCs creates a registry. As such, I don't see the need > for > the registry described in Section 3. If a registry is really needed, it > would > be helpful to include text that describes why the registry is needed. If a > case can be made for the registry I'm also confused by the initial > assignment > described in Section 3.2. It includes a data element "Name", with a > reference > to Section 2.1 of the draft, but there is no data element "Name" in > Section > 2.1. > > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/10SGxJBThV6gF8vGi29LMAG0uFCn7qADz6eT8eDTTlNAx_2KL71rgw3tMxntmZ5RctPZjdp27W5frUo1bODZofGGp4FPUXU8ouuO-i3fIHQP26EwvVN4ZV71j3mHTuQ5CQVxI5Hvt_vLF9yy1NA6uRbEn9CNh9PyU_Y3abI0S6d9P1RNDE1FtTGvFoDVbBLlbJpHOAjQTez90BbpcXsi7foA2QSVoBihLvpeTn_CXnigFFQcn5B6pk83GufTYTMcDe8w3D2uJzC1LIsWogLhn6mw9dbtvff0VA0_bo4SN8U0zFTFGdVfFvCu3oTcIU5nA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext > < > https://secure-web.cisco.com/10SGxJBThV6gF8vGi29LMAG0uFCn7qADz6eT8eDTTlNAx_2KL71rgw3tMxntmZ5RctPZjdp27W5frUo1bODZofGGp4FPUXU8ouuO-i3fIHQP26EwvVN4ZV71j3mHTuQ5CQVxI5Hvt_vLF9yy1NA6uRbEn9CNh9PyU_Y3abI0S6d9P1RNDE1FtTGvFoDVbBLlbJpHOAjQTez90BbpcXsi7foA2QSVoBihLvpeTn_CXnigFFQcn5B6pk83GufTYTMcDe8w3D2uJzC1LIsWogLhn6mw9dbtvff0VA0_bo4SN8U0zFTFGdVfFvCu3oTcIU5nA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
