Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-02.txt

[Joseph Yee <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tobias,

Many thanks for your feedback. Please see comments inline


On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:44 AM Tobias Sattler <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
> Hi Jim,
>
> Thanks for updating this draft.
>
> Some thoughts and comments from my side:
>
> General thoughts
> This document is intended to be informational. Therefore, I think it is
> better to avoid the word “standard” in the text. Because it would seem to
> be a de facto standard. I think that someone might be irritated by this
> later.
>
I vaguely recalled that some suggested changing this to BCP.  Can't find it
in the minutes. I keep 'informational' with words 'standard' around for
now. Will update on future revisions depends on which way the draft will go.


>
> Abstract
> I would open it up and write about Registries, Registrars, and Resellers.
>
I add the words 'producer' and 'consumer' next to the term registry
operator and the registrar respectively. Would the intro section be better
for the elaboration?



>
> 1. Introduction
> I would define “the producer” and “the consumer” by using the example
> Registries and Registrars as well as Registrars and Resellers. And
> reference later on only to producer and consumer.
>
But wouldn't registrar be a better understanded term?


>
> 2. Data Element Specification
> I am missing the character encoding. You are mentioning it in section 7. I
> would add a reference in section 2 to 7.
>
Done.


>
> 2.1.11 Registrar
> If you open it up to Resellers, then I would rename it to Consumer.
>
Would expanding the definition be better? I haven't made any changes to it,
want to discuss more on this first.


>
> 2.2.5. Trade
> I would add the field trade here, which is not uncommon in the ccTLD
> world. Just to have it right from the start.
>
Added.  Do you know if some ccTLD operators use a custom EPP command on
trade (to domain object)? Or it's domain update with a new contact object
where the registry operator charges on this specific transaction?


>
> 2.4.1. Registrar_ID
> If you open it up to Resellers, then I would rename it to Consumer_ID
>
Same as Registrar_ID.


>
> 3. Report Definition Specification
> After reading it, it is not 100% clear to me, what the delimiter is and if
> the values should be enclosed with (single or double) quotes.
>
We referenced RFC4180 regarding CSV.  The source mentioned double quotes.


>
> Appendix A. Acknowledgment
> There is a typo in bestpractices.domains. It is bestpractice.domains
> without a “s".
>
Fixed.  thanks.

The next revision will incorporate the changes mentioned above. And would
love to discuss more on items I haven't made changes to.

Best,
Joseph


>
>
> Best,
> Tobias
>
> > On 2. Nov 2020, at 23:21, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of
> the IETF.
> >
> >        Title           : Simple Registration Reporting
> >        Authors         : Joseph Yee
> >                          James Galvin
> >       Filename        :
> draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-02.txt
> >       Pages           : 33
> >       Date            : 2020-11-02
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   Domain name registries and registrars report to each other by sharing
> >   bulk information through files.  This document creates two IANA
> >   registries to establish a standard reporting mechanism between domain
> >   name registries and registrars.  The first IANA registry lists
> >   standard data elements and their syntax for inclusion in the files.
> >   The second IANA registry lists standard reports based on the standard
> >   data elements.  Each report is a file formatted as a CSV file.  The
> >   advantage of this reporting mechanism is that report, each file, can
> >   be imported by recipients without any prior knowledge of their
> >   contents, although reporting is enhanced with a minimum of knowledge
> >   about the files.  The mechanism for the transmission and reception of
> >   the files is a matter of local policy.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting/
> >
> > There is also an HTML version available at:
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-02.html
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-02
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > regext mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>