IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-flanagan-regext-datadictionary

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 04 January 2022 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780813A1BDB for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 04:46:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tf5wiMPlHCZa for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 04:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3980B3A1BDC for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 04:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id E6CAE2812AD for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id E1D9328144F; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4052812AD for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D714E60100C4 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C78C2401A4; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:45:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 13:45:34 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: regext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YdRBbsqJHCDOWo5T@nic.fr>
References: <2383BD58-5669-4F53-ABDF-3511257BEBDC@elistx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2383BD58-5669-4F53-ABDF-3511257BEBDC@elistx.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 11.1
X-Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-9-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.012874, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.4.9.2830568, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2022.1.4.123616, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.88.0, AntiVirus-Data: 2022.1.4.5880000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/g6LHhPjDIy2ghAFlgE6eQN367uY>
Subject: Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-flanagan-regext-datadictionary
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:46:09 -0000

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 09:27:43AM -0500,
 James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> wrote 
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> This is the formal adoption request for DNS Data Dictionary:
> 
> 	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-regext-datadictionary/

OK for adoption, since this is a real issue and this draft is a good
starting point. But I share George Michaelson's concerns: many words
are very policy-loaded and it can be difficult to capture a standard
definition for them. Also, I agree that the title should refer to
domain names, not the DNS protocol (see draft-lewis-domain-names).

Also:

> This is the domain name in an EPP [RFC5731] domain object 

I see no reason to refer to EPP (domain names existed long before EPP).

> and it MUST be in A-Label format.

Why? The international version (U-label) seems more inclusive.

> Individual names MAY be provided in either UTF-8 [RFC3629] or a
> subset of UTF-8 that can be represented in 7-bit ASCII,

Is the goal to describe semantics of a data element or also to specify
its syntax? (In the last case, we need to specify the Unicode
normalisation.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email