Steve, if the draft gives IANA instructions to create a registry, that’ll happen if the IESG approves the draft for publication as an RFC. The fact that it’s Informational won’t mean that IANA can’t do it. There is no “protocol” in the draft. As such, Standards Track makes no sense.
As I said earlier, though, the IETF has RFC precedents for data dictionaries where no IANA registry was needed or used. If the draft is going to deviate from existing practice, it needs to explain why that deviation is necessary. It doesn’t currently do that. Your note below could be a good starting point for text to be added to the draft. Scott From: Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:11 AM To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> Cc: regext@ietf.org; Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 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<mailto: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<mailto: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/<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1d--D6WlFs1EPO4svm_N-UYEoHFRaiMN0kCos51s1uCaXVmte63Oth4oB-3HqpVxaKDyracVHwCHfTR7GhzPla6yE_s6hJVgzLAh3jLSJsyxIoks7ev0TTFvjaBuPSHjhQKymwCNc5wkSyIWx5F30kr3Z45SJNAtBVhjn-dl--acuZTViepx48T83dOiHHI5m7dl87KLc39rjCMRjVXmuBAkFi5Mgw_sKotW1iyjoajyzhqsubqT1k28oASVGC3yaWJ9DrORBmasyrrEZ9GMbmfp_4JR71uBI21i-hMdOHuSuJjDcE-1mvU6-VTmGj4Ve/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>> On 2/14/23, 8:14 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> <mailto: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> <mailto: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<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1GVjmKKZ9dScEitOB9E6_UdCLI_Bwpvzs_1vpdFFVTQvaV9DBXlagkQws1sVQyossGUG6PoCD-fsqh0rlsFoElP9ak3KYHQlzVJVBWEyOGEyIrtEIXQ1vXL3N9gyV6l2wpy5VpX7-x9E97cqIMqVv_58UPYW_MDmFTyvG1FWFG4HvmHiS3nBViAjuBOY0HGBlRvXx8K1uks7STwfM7kocTRPdlKstcslBERC8tIb4sAwNKhzXJclASHzJDuW_YAHsJsfgt-n30V-VogCVWyWtYgPacLsaZPEHU8bUM_o483t6qygodwgJOUFp41S3ituf/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
