Subject: [Lager] Draft Agenda Posted

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:02:37 +0000

I just posted the draft agenda for IETF-94:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/agenda/agenda-94-lager

I'm calling it a draft because Marc and I haven't yet confirmed the slots with the discussion leaders. We'll take care of that straight away.

Scott

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:44:22 -0700

> I'm calling it a draft because Marc and I haven't yet confirmed the slots with the discussion leaders. We'll take care of that straight away.

Scott, (and Kim)

here are a minor issues for the schema.

** There's no way to define a scope that is "generic". ICANN has this 
project of defining reference LGRs for the second level, and those, by 
definition, are intended to be applicable to any zone on the second 
level. The appropriate designation would therefore be a wildcard, 
something like ".*", or some other scope type altogether, that is not 
"domain" but something else. (Range of domains?, Level?).

What is being created really is a "template", rather than an actual LGR, 
but the template is, for example, not necessarily intended for all zones 
(for example, not the root).

One way to handle this would be to have a "scope" of type="template" and 
allow the value to be descriptive, e.g. "Second Level of the DNS".

My thought is that this would be better than not having a scope at all 
for these cases.

A./

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:00:21 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lager [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Kim Davies
> Subject: Re: [Lager] Draft Agenda Posted - small suggestion
> 
> > I'm calling it a draft because Marc and I haven't yet confirmed the
> slots with the discussion leaders. We'll take care of that straight
> away.
> >
> >
> 
> Scott, (and Kim)
> 

Let's plan to talk about this during the meeting next week. Thanks for bringing it up.

Scott

---

From: Wil Tan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:06:26 +1100

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I'm calling it a draft because Marc and I haven't yet confirmed the slots
>> with the discussion leaders. We'll take care of that straight away.
>>
>>
>>
> Scott, (and Kim)
>
> definition, are intended to be applicable to any zone on the second level.

The appropriate designation would therefore be a wildcard, something like
> ".*", or some other scope type altogether, that is not "domain" but
> something else. (Range of domains?, Level?).
>

Is this a use case for having an LGR that can apply to any number of zones
based on wild card, etc?

Otherwise, can't a template use "example.org" or just "example"? When a
zone administrator instantiates the the template, it could then update the
scope to reflect its own zone, and make any additional modifications.

> allow the value to be descriptive, e.g. "Second Level of the DNS".

If the descriptive value is meant for humans to read, we should perhaps
define a "comment" attribute for <scope>.

> My thought is that this would be better than not having a scope at all for
> these cases.
>

I can see a use case of some a shared LGR. Looking at the number of
duplicates in http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables for mass registries
like Donuts, it seems that a mechanism for signalling that an LGR is to be
applicable to a non-fixed set of zones could be useful. However, we need to
define the problem and desired outcome in more details.

.wil

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:50:01 -0700

On 10/28/2015 4:06 AM, Wil Tan wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Asmus Freytag <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>     .... here are a minor issues for the schema.
>
>     ** There's no way to define a scope that is "generic". ICANN has
>     this project of defining reference LGRs for the second level, and
>     those, by definition, are intended to be applicable to any zone on
>     the second level.
>
>     The appropriate designation would therefore be a wildcard,
>     something like ".*", or some other scope type altogether, that is
>     not "domain" but something else. (Range of domains?, Level?).
>
>     What is being created really is a "template", rather than an
>     actual LGR, but the template is, for example, not necessarily
>     intended for all zones (for example, not the root).
>
>
> Is this a use case for having an LGR that can apply to any number of 
> zones based on wild card, etc?
>
> Otherwise, can't a template use "example.org <http://example.org>" or 
> just "example"? When a zone administrator instantiates the the 
> template, it could then update the scope to reflect its own zone, and 
> make any additional modifications.

It could be for ".example" if that exists, because the use case, for 
now, is for any zone in the second level.

>
>
>     One way to handle this would be to have a "scope" of
>     type="template" and allow the value to be descriptive, e.g.
>     "Second Level of the DNS".
>
>
> If the descriptive value is meant for humans to read, we should 
> perhaps define a "comment" attribute for <scope>.

Using a different "type" allows one to change the rules; so far, I 
understand that type="domain" wants to be an actual domain, and this 
field will be used to associate the LGR with some kinds of processes, 
from deciding where to warehouse the LGR to when to apply it.

A new type would have the advantage of not "placing" these template or 
model LGRs in any specific location, but if designed the wrong may may 
make it harder to use existing and anticipated tools and toolsets to 
manage and catalog them.
>
>
>     My thought is that this would be better than not having a scope at
>     all for these cases.
>
>
> duplicates in http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables for mass 
> registries like Donuts, it seems that a mechanism for signalling that 
> an LGR is to be applicable to a non-fixed set of zones could be 
> useful. However, we need to define the problem and desired outcome in 
> more details.

The use case, as far as I understand it, is to have a model LGR, which 
can be adopted into any zone (or perhaps any zone on a particular 
level). Now, the easiest is to make a copy of the file with the scope 
replaced (and/or additional scopes added).

Leaving the scope totally open means that there's no way to use it to 
identify the LGR as being for IDNs (our specification is in principle 
open to other types of internationalized identifiers). That seems a 
drawback.

If using ".example" was seen as satisfying the requirement of being, 
formally, a valid domain, and, by convention, an indicator that the 
table is not actually valid as is, that might work, but I'd like to hear 
from more people.

A./