Re: [regext] [Ext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gustavo,

Thanks for the update and addressing my comments.  I've cleared the discuss.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 13 May 2020 00:17
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; James Gould
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-regext-data-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-
> escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> Updates in version 09. See, https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-
> regext-data-escrow-09
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> On 5/12/20, 09:16, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Barry, Gustavo, all,
> 
>     Thanks for your comments.
> 
>     On the one hand, the scope of this document is tied to Domain
> Registries (e.g. its title, and the bulk of the description), but on the
> other hand the abstract and introduction indicate that the data escrow
> definitions can be used for any data escrow, and it still seems to me that
> data escrow is just a special form of backup.  I.e., I can see that these
> two domains have the potential to overlap over time and these terms could
> cause confusion.
> 
>     However, it does appear that I'm in the rough, and I don't wish to
> needlessly hold up this document.
> 
>     I could probably live with a short paragraph in the introduction,
> highlighting that these terms are used in the somewhat similar domain of
> backup operations, but with different meanings, and hence readers should
> pay attention to the precise definitions.  E.g., perhaps something like:
> 
>     This document defines terms for three types of deposit that are used
> in data escrow: Full, Differential and Incremental.  These same terms are
> also commonly used in the related domain of data backups, but with
> different definitions.  Hence, readers are advised to read the terminology
> section carefully to understand their precise meanings when used for data
> escrow.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Rob
> 
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
>     > Sent: 07 May 2020 18:37
>     > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
>     > Cc: Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>; The IESG
> <[e-mail]>;
>     > [e-mail]; James Gould <[e-mail]>;
>     > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>     > Subject: Re: [Ext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-
> data-
>     > escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>     >
>     > I'm afraid I have to agree with Gustavo that the terms used here
> need
>     > to match what's used in the domain this is written for.  It's often
>     > the case that things mean different things in different domains, and
>     > sometimes those domains are similar enough that we wish it weren't
> the
>     > case.  When it is, that's sad... but.
>     >
>     > Unless someone in the working group wants to tell us that Gustavo is
>     > wrong and we should go with what Rob suggests, I think the
> discussion
>     > has been had.  I *would* like to hear some input from the working
>     > group on this, though, before we make any final decisions.
>     >
>     > Barry
>     >
>     > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>     > <rwilton=[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Hi Gustavo,
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > > -----Original Message-----
>     > > > From: Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>
>     > > > Sent: 17 April 2020 00:59
>     > > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG
> <[e-mail]>
>     > > > Cc: [e-mail]; regext-
> [e-mail];
>     > > > [e-mail]; James Gould <[e-mail]>
>     > > > Subject: Re: [Ext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-
> data-
>     > > > escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>     > > >
>     > > > Thank you Robert,
>     > > >
>     > > > Comments inline, prefixed with GL -
>     > > >
>     > > > Regards,
>     > > > Gustavo
>     > > >
>     > > > On 4/8/20, 10:04, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker"
> <[e-mail]>
>     > > > wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > >     Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
>     > > >     draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: Discuss
>     > > >
>     > > >     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
> reply to
>     > all
>     > > >     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
> to cut
>     > > > this
>     > > >     introductory paragraph, however.)
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >     Please refer to
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>     > > > 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-
>     > > >
>     >
> 2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=V
>     > > > bweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-
> 0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=gZgTftWuC9SsZdq_QWTwb-
>     > > > T4RjxNiDq9i2krpdXgHfM&s=QHMiOWDTGvuiZh0DtVdWwx_J4DxECAFWGpr-
> Srux4pQ&e=
>     > > >     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be
> found
>     > here:
>     > > >     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>     > > > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddata-
>     > > >
>     >
> 2Descrow_&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciU
>     > > > cwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=gZgTftWuC9SsZdq_QWTwb-
>     > > >
> T4RjxNiDq9i2krpdXgHfM&s=YhAtC7C7hDwiSnfUvetOd_lI7t6Q5KkhtITQ9Vv9OXE&e=
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>     > ----
>     > > >     DISCUSS:
>     > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>     > ----
>     > > >
>     > > >     Hi,
>     > > >
>     > > >     I spotted some issues with the terminology and the
> description of
>     > the
>     > > > algorithm
>     > > >     that I would like you to please address.
>     > > >
>     > > >     Section 2: Terminology
>     > > >
>     > > >     The definitions provided for "Differential" vs "Incremental"
> are
>     > the
>     > > > opposite
>     > > >     to their standard meaning in backups.  The term definitions
> should
>     > be
>     > > > reversed
>     > > >     to align with the common vernacular.  I.e. differential is
> the
>     > diff
>     > > > against the
>     > > >     last full backup, incremental is the backup since the backup
> (of
>     > any
>     > > > type) was
>     > > >     performed.
>     > > >
>     > > > GL - The definition of differential in the draft complies with
> the
>     > legal
>     > > > use in the gTLD space. The amount of work required to make this
>     > change,
>     > > > make it unrealistic. It's worth mentioning that data escrow is
> not the
>     > > > same as a backup.
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > > I don't see a huge difference between a remote backup vs data
> escrow.
>     > E.g., if I use an online backup service then it seems that they are
>     > storing data securely on my behalf that I can subsequently recover
> if
>     > required.  It feels like the concepts are so very similar that using
> the
>     > same set of terms with different meanings could easily cause
> confusion.
>     > >
>     > > The choice here is between having
>     > > (i) a protocol that matches legal data escrow definitions but
> could
>     > easily be confused by people who see this as a type of remote backup
>     > > (ii) a protocol specification that matches the widely used common
>     > definitions for these terms (e.g.
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Incremental-
> 5Fbackup&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUc
> wYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=1L8mecOmXYHf-
> S9_N59ShLSZlCtF2CNXAow6FvYCD-
> I&s=IF3CR_PqF7CusnR8FLweNe6ktIM2W75cVORcdw8ILoI&e= ,
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Differential-
> 5Fbackup&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUc
> wYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=1L8mecOmXYHf-
> S9_N59ShLSZlCtF2CNXAow6FvYCD-
> I&s=kp2_C7D5tVWMc9vG1WRHtEjmXycwluQCWa6IriCIObc&e= ), but that is opposite
>     > to the legal definitions.
>     > >
>     > > It seems to me that the legal definitions are really self-
> contained
>     > within their documents, and potentially could be updated over time.
>     > However, I see no way that we can convince the world in general to
> reverse
>     > their understanding/usage of these terms, and hence if you are to
> use
>     > these terms, I still believe that they should align to their common
> usage
>     > rather than the legal definitions.
>     > >
>     > > Of course, an alternative solution would be to define and use
> completely
>     > different terms for the incremental and differential deposits, e.g.
> full
>     > deposit, full-delta deposit, minimal-delta deposit.
>     > >
>     > > Thanks,
>     > > Rob
>     > >