Subject: [weirds] New proposed charter

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:38:19 -0500

Dear colleagues,

I modified the previously-posted draft charter in keeping with what I
understood from the comments last time.  Here's what I did:

    - I did _not_ remove the discussions of name registries.  It
    appeared from the discussion that we have volunteers for names,
    and most of the response seemed to be opposed to ruling names out
    of scope.

    - I changed "number registries" to "number resource registries".
    I didn't use "number resources registries" because it just seemed
    too awkward, but I'm willing to entertain arguments about this.  I
    notice that ARIN stands for American Registry for Internet
    Numbers; so "number registry" might still be ok.  But "NRO"
    expands to "Number Resource Organization", so I think "number
    resource" ought to be ok.

    - I attempted to alter the text in line with many of the
    suggestions from the list, but in keeping with the previous two
    bullets.  I think I addressed everything, so long as it did not
    seem to be directed to setting name registries out of scope.

Comments, tomatoes, &c. welcome as usual.  If at all possible I would
like to nail this down soon.  In principle, if we seem to have
agreement and think we could make some progress, we could request a
BoF until 2012-02-13.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:41:18 -0500

And now, of course, with the attachment goodness you were promised.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:48:08 -0500

If the intent is to include name registries as in scope I have two 
questions about elements of the charter.

WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds)
------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT Charter v 2012-01-27

    .... deleted for brevity

    The
    overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry
    Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but
    with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple,
    easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and
    without the requirement that name registries be accommodated.

Presumably the phrase after the last comma is an oversight that should 
have been deleted?

And now the remaining three paragraphs:

    The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object
    format) using the above framework.  The data profile shall provide
    the necessary support for operation of number registries.

    The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to
    permit future development in other registries, including number
    registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name
    registries.

    The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or
    object format) to provide the support for name registries to use
    the protocol.  The initial work list for the working group shall
    not include work on name registry support, and development of the
    number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar
    to name registries.  However, when choosing between two
    otherwise-equivalent options, the working group shall prefer the
    one that is most amenable to re-use by name registries, and
    potential re-use by name registries will be a guiding principle of
    the work.  Name registry support is explicitly part of the working
    group's scope, but actual work on that topic is declared out of
    scope at the beginning of work.

Is there a reason the preceding paragraphs can not be reduced to the 
following:

    The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object
    format) using the above framework.  The data profile shall provide
    the necessary support for operation of number and name registries.
    This may require two independent data profiles.

Jim

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:27:32 -0500

> questions about elements of the charter.

Well, my intention at least was not to include name registries _in_
scope, but not to rule them out of scope.  That is, they are in scope
in principle, but the initial work is to focus on number resources
because that was the overwhelming agreement for initial focus in
Taipei.  

I think the reason for that agreement was that we had three number
resource regiestries who had produced drafts, worked examples, and so
on.  We had only one name registry, and not a very big one at that.

If you're saying now that there is actually room for a dual initial
focus, to include name registries from the beginning, then the best
way to illustrate that would be with an Internet Draft, apart from
draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd (or else a bunch of review of that
one saying, "This is the basis for moving ahead on name registries"),
or something like that.  A top-down approach, in which the charter is
established first and then we say, "Get to work," is exactly the sort
of thing people were objecting to in Taipei, so I don't think the
inital charter could include name registry object mappings in its
initial set of deliverables.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:18:56 +0100

>    This may require two independent data profiles.

While I agree that shorter is better, I think that those profiles
should (also, if not primarily) reflect the _actual_ data models, as
currently served via whois/web interfaces.

Can the charter accommodate an *additional deliverable* on this topic?
That is, can we produce a single document stating the best current
practices as an item independent of the (informal) requirements?

TIA for any +1

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:30:30 -0200

Hello,

I believe that at this point we should avoid getting bogged down in the
mud of data models. This doesn't mean they are not important, it means
that we should not get too exited and perfectionists. Reflecting
currently-in-use data models and abstracting the representation of the
most commonly used objects (IP addresses, organizations, people, dns
servers) should be enough for now.

In my head, the ideal situation would be:

- abstract commonly appearing objects (addresses, domains,
organizations, people), try to reflect currently-in-use formats
- provide for extensibility everywhere, allowing parties to add their
own fields to each of these objects
- provide for additional-non standard objects

Once we have *something* in place, avoiding a multi-year discussion on
the merits of this or that representation or model then we can
re-charter and have some more formal data model in place.

regards

Carlos

On 1/30/12 8:18 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

-- 

--
Carlos M. Martinez
LACNIC R+D
http://www.labs.lacnic.net

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:09:08 -0200

I am ok with this version.

	Also I would like to have a BoF in Paris.

Regards,
/as

On 27 Jan 2012, at 20:41, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> <wierds-charter-20120127a.txt>_______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]