Subject: Re: [weirds] New Unified DNR/RIR Internet-Drafts

From: "谢家贵" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:55:22 +0800

Hello Kucherawy,

>So far response to the middle three has been entirely positive. 
I do not think so. IMO, most of the positive feedbacks are from number guys.So far,most feedbacks from name guys, such as Linlin, Francisco and myself, 
show that at least the draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response is not suitable as the starting point for working on our weirds response deliverables. More detailed explanations, please refer to Linlin Zhou and Francisco Obispo's mails.

Kevin.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:39:11 -0700

> show that at least the draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response is not suitable as the starting point for working on our weirds response deliverables. More detailed explanations, please refer to L…

Linlin's comments, with which Francisco concurred, did not include
objection, merely feedback.

Can you explain why this document is not even suitable as a starting
point for work?

-MSK

---

From: Kevin Tse <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:30:26 +0800

Hello,
-- 
Kevin Tse <[email-masked]>
CNNIC

> Can you explain why this document is not even suitable as a starting
Firstly speaking,we already have two response documents for both
RIR(draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response-00) and
DNR.(draft-kong-dnrd-ap-response-json-00).

Secondly,this document should act as the role to help both the names and
numbers improve the response drafts synchronous.

Kevin.

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:24:29 +0800

Hello Murray,
> > I do not think so. IMO, most of the positive feedbacks are from number
> > guys.So far,most feedbacks from name guys, such as Linlin, Francisco and
> myself, show that at least the draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response
is
> not suitable as the starting point for working on our weirds response
> deliverables. More detailed explanations, please refer to Linlin Zhou and
> Francisco Obispo's mails.
> 
objection,
> merely feedback.
Actually my feedback is not positive.

> Can you explain why this document is not even suitable as a starting point
for
> work?
We already have two separated response drafts by RIR and DNR. These two
drafts have been reviewed and improved by the design team and the working
group. A lot of efforts are made for response drafts.  So I think these
drafts are definitely worth to be the starting points for working on our
weirds response
deliverables. IMO, the substantial key point for us is to coordinate the RIR
draft with the DNR draft, not to 
have a nominal unified document.

So my strong suggestion is adopting the following two drafts as working
group documents.

draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response
draft-kong-dnrd-ap-response-json

In the same time, I don't think it's necessary to adopt
draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response as WG document. It's better to be
informational reference document to help us coordinate the RIR response
draft with DNR's.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:36:09 +0100

Linlin,

	As mentioned, in Vancouver the WG chose to go in another direction for the object inventory, I suppose that applies for query and response.

/as

On 5 Sep 2012, at 11:24, Linlin Zhou wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:00:46 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Kevin Tse
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 5:30 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] New Unified DNR/RIR Internet-Drafts
> 
> Hello,
> --
> RIR(draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response-00) and DNR.(draft-
> kong-dnrd-ap-response-json-00).

Neither of these two documents attempts to specify a unified names/numbers approach. They were good starting points to capture ideas and promote discussion, but they are evolutionary dead ends.

> Secondly,this document should act as the role to help both the names
> and numbers improve the response drafts synchronous.

That's exactly what we're trying to do with draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response.

Scott

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:11:18 +0000

> Behalf Of ???
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:55 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> guys.So far,most feedbacks from name guys, such as Linlin, Francisco
> and myself, show that at least the draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-
> response is not suitable as the starting point for working on our
> weirds response deliverables. More detailed explanations, please refer
> to Linlin Zhou and Francisco Obispo's mails.

This names person supports the proposed "unified" approach. If the new unified response draft isn't quite right (no one should expect a -00 draft to be perfect), it can be modified.

Scott

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:00:14 -0700

> Actually my feedback is not positive.

Understood.  The words you chose didn't seem like objection to me,
only suggestions for development.

>> Can you explain why this document is not even suitable as a starting point for
>> work?
>

I understand we could certainly do it that way, but I'm so far not
understanding why it's better for this working group to produce two
response documents rather than a single one that covers both cases.  I
don't recall hearing in Vancouver any objection to the goal of
maintaining only a single set of documents as far "up the stack" as
possible, and trying to produce a unified response document would be
consistent with that vision.

I stress here that there's been no suggestion to discard any of the
design team's work to date.  The suggestion we're discussing is merely
to work toward having their results in a single response document
rather than having two.

Can you explain why producing two response documents is the necessary
path forward?

-MSK

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:48:25 +0000

On 9/5/12 10:00 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I

For the record, I did object though not strenuously. But I believe I was
the only one. I withdraw that objection. Once again, I've seen the light.

Unfortunately, we accidentally published a version of the unified-response
draft that was not the latest edit. The latest edit contained text to
address some of the issues Linlin brought up. We will roll that edit as
-01 (and if the chairs so desire, I can push that ASAP if they feel it
will aid discussion). But I'll excerpt some of that here.

If I understand Linlin's objection of the unified data model, it is that
since the RIR model is a complete subset of the DNR model where overlap
exists then the two might as well be separate models.

The notion that they one is a "subset" of the other is about the
presentation of the idea to the different communities. However, from a
client perspective it is one model. Our introduction has been updated to
note this:

   The data model for the responses consists of two major categories:
   responses returned by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) for
   registrations data related to IP addresses, reverse DNS names, and
   Autonomous System numbers; and responses returned by Domain Name
   Registries (DNRs) for registration data related to forward DNS names.
   Where overlap exists between RIR and DNR reponse object classes, the
   RIR object classes are a proper subset of the DNR object classes.
   The current division between RIR and DNR object classes is given to
   illustrate an expectation of what data may be expected from an RIR vs
   a DNR.  However, implementers should be aware that RIRs are not
   limited to the data in the RIR object classes (as an example, some
   RIRs have a notion of "status" for entities as defined in the DNR
   entity object class and may at some point start publishing that
   data).

-andy

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:53:54 +0000

On 9/5/12 6:24 AM, "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>IMO, the substantial key point for us is to coordinate the RIR

Sorry to respond in such a sporadic manner, but there is one more thing I
want to point out. The unified response draft not only unifies the RIR and
DNR models but also the differing nameserver/host models for DNRs (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response-00#sec
tion-4). That came about while taking a step back and looking at the
commonalities between the RIR and DNR models. There is benefit in being
able to take the perspective.

-andy

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:26:36 -0700

Hi Linlin,
>drafts are definitely worth to be the starting points for working on our

Some individuals may have grouped together and called it a design 
team but it is not the WG design team.  The drafts were discussed 
informally on the mailing list even though they were not WG drafts.

>have a nominal unified document.

Scott Hollenbeck  [1] asked for a set of drafts to be considered for 
adoption as working group drafts.  There was a message [2] that they 
were in line with vision the chairs presented in Vancouver for a path forward.

Drafts does not require approval by name and/or numbers people as 
participation is as individuals.  There aren't constituencies as 
such.  The point, in my humble opinion, is to get the work done.  The 
work is performed by individuals instead of representatives of 
organizations.  There seems to be a misunderstanding about how the IETF works.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01489.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01491.html

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:11:11 +0800

Dear Murray,

> I understand we could certainly do it that way, but I'm so far not
understanding
> why it's better for this working group to produce two response documents
rather
> than a single one that covers both cases.  I don't recall hearing in
Vancouver any
> objection to the goal of maintaining only a single set of documents as far
"up the
> stack" as possible, and trying to produce a unified response document
would be
> I stress here that there's been no suggestion to discard any of the design
team's
> work to date.  The suggestion we're discussing is merely to work toward
having
> their results in a single response document rather than having two.
> 
> Can you explain why producing two response documents is the necessary path
> forward?
> 
IMO, names and numbers not only have common elements but also their own
unique elements of each other. Our following work should focus on both kinds
of elements since each kind of elements are important and necessary.

As for the common elements, I definitely hope names and numbers adopt the
same design. Such goal can be achieved in two ways, whether having a unified
response draft or coordinating the existing two RIR and DNR response drafts
by communication between names and numbers. They all can lead to the same
destination, just different working approaches. So I don’t care too much
about the working form.

As for unique elements, I believe there will be tough works need to do
especially for names. These works also need to be started in the beginning.
For example, a tough object inventory for names raised by WG chairs is now
in progress. I think numbers are almost ready now and the names situations
are more complex than numbers and need more time. If we put all the unique
parts in one unified draft, names part will delay the whole progress.
According to the milestone in WG charter, the RIR drafts will be published
almost half a year earlier than DNR. Will the unified response draft be
divided eventually? If so, why don't we directly keep the two existing RIR
and DNR response drafts at the very start? As I said in previous emails, a
lot of efforts are made for the existing response drafts. These two existing
response drafts are more worthy than the new unified response draft to be
the starting points for working on unique elements.

So, I strongly suggest the RIR and DNR response drafts which specify the
unique elements of its own to be starting points of WG. Our next work may
focus on the coordination and improvement of these two drafts. If most guys
of WG think a new individual draft is necessary for coordination, I may also
agree to use such a draft as a reference to achieve our goal.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:39:18 -0700

> of elements since each kind of elements are important and necessary.

There is absolutely no intent to disregard this point.  The question
for the WG comes down to whether the number of unique things for
either camp is substantial and, if so, how to go about publishing
them.

I think to emphasize the goal of sticking as much as possible to a
common solution, we should aim to produce common documents as much as
possible.  If the hard work of the design team reveals a manageable
number of differences, then I believe they could be merged into the
unified documents; if not, then the working group can decide it would
prefer to create a separate draft that presents the differences,
preferably as extensions to a base document set.

What I would like us not to do is pre-emptively decide that by
creating working group documents which anticipate the division.  We
should only do so later, after the design team's analysis is complete
and the team concludes (and the WG agrees) that the division is indeed
necessary and substantial.

> the starting points for working on unique elements.

As I also said in previous messages, there is absolutely no intent to
discard the hard work put into existing drafts.  That is especially
true of the design team doing WHOIS response analysis.  The people who
are appointed editors of those documents the WG adopts are required to
record consensus of the WG, and if consensus is to incorporate work
from other individual submissions, then that will happen.  You will be
quite within your rights to advocate for addition of important points
to the drafts that are adopted, but I imagine that will be pretty much
automatic for work that moves us toward our stated goals.  Naturally
the authors of the original drafts will receive appropriate credit
when their work is incorporated.

The matter of editor selection also still needs resolution.

I am not attempting to hold up any one draft's content or any one
person's work as "more worthy" than any other.  Rather, I've proposed
to adopt documents whose directions align with what I believe to be
the desired direction of the working group.

The charter text doesn't require division of the work, but rather
presents it as a last resort option.  As I read it, most of the text
talks about framework and format in the singular.  It also says that
the number registry work is more fully developed so far, so their work
should be the basis for the WG input documents.  I think the proposed
unified drafts to a good job of finding common starting points based
on those points.

However, you are correct about the milestones; the charter text is
focused on providing a single solution, while the milestones show
clear division.  This should have been caught sooner, and I apologize
if it has led to some confusion about our direction.  I think given
the goal of unifying work as much as practical, we should petition to
change the milestones accordingly to focus on producing the common
stuff first and the divergent stuff later.  Assuming the base proposed
set of documents, something like this could work:

Feb 2013 draft-designteam-weirds-using-http to the IESG
Apr 2013 draft-hollenbeck-weirds-rdap-sec to the IESG
Jun 2013 draft-hollenbeck-weirds-unified-rdap-query to the IESG
Sep 2013 draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response to the IESG
Dec 2013 extension drafts (if needed) to the IESG

Does anyone think those are unreasonable?

-MSK

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:40:27 +0000

>Does anyone think those are unreasonable?

My comments:

1) So long as the last paragraph of the charter remains, I have no
objection for seeking this change.

2) I see no reason why the first 4 drafts can't all be due Apr 2013,
unless the chairs are seeking implementation experience before moving the
documents to the IESG.

3) There is no mention of the requirements draft. Perhaps it should be
added with the same "(if needed)" qualifier.

-andy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:05:08 -0700

> objection for seeking this change.

I didn't suggest any change to the charter text, only the milestones.

> unless the chairs are seeking implementation experience before moving the

I'm happy with sooner if we think we can hit them.  I was building in
some buffer time for upcoming holidays, etc.

> added with the same "(if needed)" qualifier.

I'd do that one first if we think we need it.  I'll post an update to
it (still as an individual submission) soon and then we can decide
whether to include it.

-MSK

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 00:32:54 +0100

Seems reasonable to me.

Regards.
as

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:14:06 +1000

Hi Murray & WG,

> some buffer time for upcoming holidays, etc.

Good move to change the milestones, and I prefer aiming for the stars with an Apr 2013 deadline, too, but I'd like to hear from the group working on the names elements survey about the timelines they think are reasonable.

  Byron

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:37:38 +0000

>Dec 2013 extension drafts (if needed) to the IESG

In addition to the above, I think a milestone of delivering the object
inventory as an informational RFC is needed as well. I believe this was
mentioned at the meeting in Vancouver as well.

-andy

---

From: "Ning Kong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 23:08:07 +0800

> In addition to the above, I think a milestone of delivering the object
inventory
> as an informational RFC is needed as well. I believe this was mentioned at
the
> meeting in Vancouver as well.
I'd like to make a draft as an initial input based on my presentation (Whois
Object Inventory Statistical Analysis) in Vancouver if the WG agree this
work makes sense.

Cheers,
Ning

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:05:54 -0700

Hi Ning,
>Object Inventory Statistical Analysis) in Vancouver if the WG agree this

Anyone can submit a draft.  Not all drafts have to end up as 
RFCs.  That does not mean that the draft or the work is not 
useful.  The question that might be asked is why is it important for 
the document to be part of the RFC archive.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Sep 2012 20:06:52 -0000

>mentioned at the meeting in Vancouver as well.

It doesn't have to be a milestone.  If the WG wants to make it an RFC,
we can just do it.

R's,
John