Re: [weirds] Basis for BOF request for Taipei

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think the charter reads well. I have a few comments:

"While there are parts of IRIS that have been widely deployed, as a
    replacement for WHOIS it has not been a success.  "

Not certain why we'd need to say more than 

"IRIS has not been a success as a replacement for WHOIS".

"The Working Group shall undertake to document the existing
    efforts, to determine the general needs of such a service; and to
    standardize a data format"

Does this mean the group will come up with a single data format? 

Last point. Is it worth mentioning anything about the problems ad hoc solutions to accommodate internationalized registration data using Whois create? Server specific signaling, widely varying response formats, and error reporting already inhibit legitimate automation. None of these scale well today and will only become worse. While I concede that it's not possible to suppress ad hoc efforts, providing a scalable solution offers a practical alternative.

On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I'm attaching a proposed draft WG charter and a possible agenda for a
> BOF in Taipei.  Some of you may recall that we had hoped after Quebec
> to make greater progress than we have.  For my part, I have let down
> my end of the log, due to some personal issues that cropped up at the
> end of the Quebec IETF meeting.
> 
> The deadline for BOF requests is on Monday.  I already sent a note to
> the Apps ADs warning them that a BOF request will be coming.  I'd like
> to propose the following as an agenda, and the attached draft charter,
> when I make the request.  Both of these are totally tentative,
> however, and I'd appreciate feedback, additions, alterations, and
> deletions.
> 
> Remember that the deadline for the BOF request is Monday.  These
> documents don't need to be final when that request is made -- we can
> continue work on the list here prior to the IETF meeting -- but I'd
> like to be able to demonstrate engagement and activity.  Apart from
> the activity we already see on the list, discussion about these two
> administrative details will provide evidence of an engaged community
> that will create an effective working group.  Therefore, the sooner
> you can get your comments in, the better.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> Proposed agenda (1 hour):
> 
>    0.  Agenda bashing.
> 
>    1.  A very quick review of the background.
> 
>    2.  A pointer to the drafts about actual deployments, but not                  discussion of these.                                                        
>    3.  A very quick overview of the then-extant requirements draft.           
> 
>    4.  Questions for discussion (at least 30 mins):                                 
>        a.  Is this a problem to be solved?                                     
>        b.  Is the problem statement in the proposed charter clear                     enough?                                                                 
>        c.  Do we think we can solve the problem?                               
>        d.  Are there people willing to work on the problem?   
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> <wierds-charter-20110929a.txt>_______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> weirds@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOhIksAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNnHAH/iZnWeJkQdGmuQ+2ezEWQLSW
u/tMJ84ABHqWXglx+EKpkCIE4uNIODJW+kDwkSUT93p9DKKItYmMiZ62P/l5yZF2
nO1Mi01tPQvSmSsMWIGAVsB1OJ13sb8Px7Ya+Q/Ina+XhuXET+sdggUjxpChGr1W
dFw6oTYNIYscPKrW34Hrq0Awdhvye9J7wWtBzntvNcJT4RiOY1aOL5kam5hT7fSZ
G6KHLMyG6zEabnQNalKXKEqChuUNmiILeGK8DpJWnWyee8OCnZEFSsEalElPPOUe
4pnxnCD7DUunBvhPe+qDZym143KQ0kiv0Zpiu3sxwfgAg4+XgOM3aBBJSQ+MqeU=
=r7dH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----