Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02

[Pieter Vandepitte <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linlin,

I did not know you waited on my to give feedback on optimizing the drafts. Regarding the remarks I gave you about the 'org' extension, you can apply what you suggested.

I also had a question about the roles and the use of the linked status. It would be better in my opinion to explicitly mention that somewhere or to give an example. 

I turn back to you for the review of the org-ext draft later.

Kind regards

Pieter


> On 24 May 2018, at 04:07, Linlin Zhou <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Patrick,
> During the WGLC, the drafts were updated from version 02 to 06 to response the comments on the mailing list. We are now waiting for our shepherd to give some feedbacks to optimize them. I think it is better to follow the version 06 of the org drafts if you have any comments.
> As for the role definition, I think the generic organization way decided that we need to have a "role". You can trace the reseller drafts that there was no "role" element at all. Because we don't need a "role" to distinguish different types of organizations. The "Role Values Registry" was also disccused on the mailing list and got most people's support.
> 
> Regards,
> Linlin
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  
> From: Gould, James <mailto:jgould=[e-mail]>
> Date: 2018-05-23 20:05
> To: Pieter Vandepitte <mailto:[e-mail]>; Patrick Mevzek <mailto:[e-mail]>
> CC: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
> I would like to understand the concern around the use of the roles.  There are cases where an organization can play multiple roles (registrar, privacy proxy, dns provider, etc.) that helps defined what kind of links can be made to it.  The roles on the links between the objects and the organization is needed to qualify the type of relationship that exists between the object and the organization.  When the draft only dealt with the reseller, there was a single role.  When the working group agreed to define a more generic organization object for multiple purposes, the concept of the role was needed to support it.   
>  
>   
> —
> JG
>  
>  
>  
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> [e-mail]
>  
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>  
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> 
>  
> On 5/23/18, 7:36 AM, "regext on behalf of Pieter Vandepitte" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>  
>     Chairs,
>     
>     Do we postpone the submission to IESG or do I continue my write-up?
>     
>     @Patrick, did you have time in mean time to catch up? How would you like the draft to be changed in order to support it? I guess it's the fact that roles are defined as properties of the organization and at the same time as properties of the link?
>     
>     Kind regards
>     
>     Pieter
>     
>     > On 22 May 2018, at 08:57, Pieter Vandepitte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > 
>     > Hi all,
>     > 
>     > Other thoughts? I think it's important as document shepherd to know whether we should move on or not.
>     > 
>     > Kind regards
>     > 
>     > Pieter
>     > 
>     >> On 21 May 2018, at 05:19, Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> 
>     >> On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 15:32, James Galvin wrote:
>     >>> With that, version 06 of this document has been published and the chairs 
>     >>> are declaring WGLC closed.  The document is now ready for submission to 
>     >>> IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
>     >> 
>     >> Isn't that a little rushed?
>     >> 
>     >>> From a quick search I have found about only 2 explicit mention of support of this document, from Pieter and Scott (as for myself I can not say I explicitely support it because I am still uneasy by the need for it or not seeing it and still not understanding some part of it like all the "role" part).
>     >> 
>     >> Also the document went into so many iterations during the period that it was basicaly impossible to follow
>     >> (one night I have tried reviewing its newest version by implementing it in my client... to find out in the morning that a new version went out so I kind of decided to stop giving it my time before it stabilizes in some way); some new comments even just popped out on the mailing-list yesterday.
>     >> 
>     >> So I feel uneasy process-wise. Based on the amount of iterations during WGLC it looks like to me that there is at least still some work needed on it, and I am not sure its current version correspond really to the working group consensus.
>     >> 
>     >> The above applies the same way for the two "organization" documents.
>     >> 
>     >> -- 
>     >> Patrick Mevzek
>     >> 
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> regext mailing list
>     >> [e-mail]
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>     > 
>     
>     _______________________________________________
>     regext mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>     
>  
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>