Re: [regext] DOODLE: select your documents

[Tobias Sattler <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Thank you very much for your email.

I do understand your point. The original idea behind RFCs is, of course, for the benefit of the Internet community. What you can question about certain available drafts - and I'm not just referring to my own.

However, nowadays most domain registries have withdrawn to the point of implementing only their own ideas or approved RFCs. This inevitably leads to the situation that proposals for improvement - whoever they come from - either have to be solved via approved RFCs, in lengthy bilateral talks / negotiations or through policy development.

The goal of the ICANN CPH TechOps Group was and is to address technical and operational challenges and as there seems to be no other way we decided to go for the standardized way. If the REGEXT Group thinks that an individual submission with the status informational is sufficient and this is fully supported by the domain registries, then I see no problem doing it this way and we can save time and effort here.

Just let me know how you want to do it.

Best,
Tobias

> On 3. Jan 2019, at 09:25, Alexander Mayrhofer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Jim, 
> 
> thanks for posting that - i've made my choices. 
> 
> <rant>
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> As i have voiced in the past, I see greatest value when the IETF standardizes widely used protocols, *OR* important extensions to standards track protocols. Those are the documents that directly or indirectly affect billions of internet internet users, and that's where the IETF should focus their energy on. I do believe the standardization of industry-specific file formats with a very narrow (temporal and spatial) application window, affecting only 1k-2k organizations (and ~10k individual, at most - about 6 magnitudes less!) is an extremely inefficient use of the scarce resources of the IETF, and should pursued somewhere else. Particularly since most of the regext regulars congregate at various other venues anyways.
> 
> Slapping an RFC number onto a document just so that an ecstatic crowd can commence their chant "it's an RFC!! An RFC! Arrr Efff Zeee!! You MUST implement!!" doesn't make it a "better" or  "more important" specification. 
> 
> I do believe in the value of standardization, but we should carefully select the right venues.
> 
> </rant>
> 
> Best,
> Alex
> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: regext <[e-mail]> Im Auftrag von James Galvin
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Dezember 2018 17:13
>> An: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
>> Betreff: [regext] DOODLE: select your documents
>> 
>> Please take the time to select the documents you support for advancement in
>> this working group.
>> 
>> https://doodle.com/poll/6nyguby3yr8dx9cp
>> 
>> Please select from 1-5 documents.
>> 
>> If you click once in the box a green check mark will appear.  Use this to
>> indicate support for a document.  If you click twice in the box a yellow check
>> mark in parentheses will appear.  You may use the yellow check mark to
>> indicate support that is a lower priority than a green check mark.
>> 
>> For your convenience I have included the list of documents and their links
>> below.
>> 
>> This selection process will remain open for 3 weeks, until 11 January 2019.
>> 
>> Enjoy your holiday season!  See you all next year!
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
>> DOCUMENTS TO CONSIDER
>> 
>> Registry Reporting Repository
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-
>> repo/
>> 
>> Registry Reporting Structure
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-
>> structure/
>> 
>> Domain Fee Report
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/
>> 
>> Registry Transaction Report
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-
>> report/
>> 
>> Registry Domain Inventory Report
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-
>> report/
>> 
>> Registry Domain Drop Report
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report
>> 
>> Registry Unavailable Domain Report
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-
>> report/
>> 
>> Registry Maintenance Notifications
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/
>> 
>> Unhandled Namespaces
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-
>> namespaces
>> 
>> Data Set File Format
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/
>> 
>> Login Security
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/
>> 
>> Federated Authentication for RDAP
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/
>> 
>> RDAP Partial Response
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/
>> 
>> RDAP Search
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/
>> 
>> RDAP Reverse Search
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/
>> 
>> RDAP Sorting and Paging
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-
>> paging/
>> 
>> Registry Data Escrow Specification
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/
>> 
>> Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/
>> 
>> Third Party DNS Operator to Registrar/Registry
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-
>> protocol/
>> 
>> Validate
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-validate/
>> 
>> Verification Code
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext