IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [weirds] Scope and guiding principles (was Re: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt)

Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Fri, 04 May 2012 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@denic.de>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E40321F85F2 for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 01:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mpZJaCpsX5RL for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 01:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AA521F8649 for <weirds@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 01:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1SQEKH-0001TS-Be; Fri, 04 May 2012 10:57:21 +0200
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1SQEKH-0003re-87; Fri, 04 May 2012 10:57:21 +0200
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 10:57:21 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: weirds@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120504085721.GB4152@x27.adm.denic.de>
Mail-Followup-To: weirds@ietf.org
References: <4FA1610E.3050706@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <CBC86177.2C58A%francisco.arias@icann.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CBC86177.2C58A%francisco.arias@icann.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: Peter Koch <peter@denic.de>
Subject: Re: [weirds] Scope and guiding principles (was Re: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds>
List-Post: <mailto:weirds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:57:24 -0000

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:56:12PM -0700, Francisco Arias wrote:

> 1. The protocol MUST enable policy options, not dictate them. (We should
> specify all the features that are requested, subject to principle #2

if only the boundary was that sharp. ("now that we have this nice
specification of the Guillotine, we really should do something with the
self sharpening blades ...")

> 2. We MUST only specify features that are already required/implemented by
> registries/registrars. )Other features can be specified later by those
> interested in extensions to the protocol.)

Limiting scope makes sense, but where's the threshold? At least one? The "majority"?
Is the ICANN/gTLD world what counts?

-Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email