Subject: [weirds] Post-BoF charter

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:30:56 +0000

Attached is the last charter Andy Newton posted, modified as per the conversation at the BoF in Paris.

Please comment, including posting expressions of support.

Thanks,
-MSK

---

From: Frederico A C Neves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:54:48 -0300

> Please comment, including posting expressions of support.

This represents the discussion during the BoF addressing concerns
regarding the response content and the possibility of one registry
type delaying the work progress of the other. I fully support it.

> -MSK

Fred

---

From: Francisco Arias <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:15:08 -0700

>type delaying the work progress of the other. I fully support it.

+1

__

Francisco.

---

From: Patrick Vande Walle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:15:45 +0200

> Please comment, including posting expressions of support.

I support this draft charter.

Patrick Vande Walle

---

From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:20:10 -0300

I support the Post-BoF charter.

regards,

-Carlos

On 3/29/12 2:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:37:56 +0000

I support this version of the charter.

Scott

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [weirds] Post-BoF charter

Thanks,
-MSK

---

From: Francisco Obispo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:43:59 -0700

I support this charter

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> <weirds_charter.txt>_______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]

Francisco Obispo 
email: [email-masked]
Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:14:53 +0200

Supported.

Regards
as

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 2012 22:37:17 -0000

>    Should the Working Group reach a point where it determines that the problem
>    of producing a grand unified specification for both numbers and names
>    appears to be intractable, it will be permitted to divide the problem
>    into separate tasks and amend its milestones accordingly.

Hi, it's me, your little ray of grey drizzle.  On its own, this
language is awful, since it still permits WG members to stall work
indefinitely by denying that the names effort has gone off into the
weeds.  But since our AD made it crystal clear that he'll wield an
axe if he sees that happening, it's OK.  Ship it.

R's,
John

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:42:35 +0200

> Please comment, including posting expressions of support.

Folks, I'm most interested in expressions of support (or lack of 
support) and comments from people who did *not* support the previous 
version of the charter. If you supported the previous version but 
*don't* like this one, your comments would also be appreciated. If you 
supported the last one and still like this one, it would probably be 
most useful to hold off just saying that for the moment. Otherwise, if 
there are folks who still don't like it and we make a few more changes 
(all of which you still like), you're going to be generating a lot of 
email messages. :-)

But I guess I'm glad to hear that you still like it.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:43:31 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [weirds] Post-BoF charter
> 
> weeds.  But since our AD made it crystal clear that he'll wield an axe
> if he sees that happening, it's OK.  Ship it.

Doesn't this text give the co-chairs the ability to wallop exactly the problem you're describing?

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:37:05 -0700

>indefinitely by denying that the names effort has gone off into the

Yes.

During the BoF, the AD voiced out a preference for a severability 
clause.  Breaking the grand unified specification into separate tasks 
is not that in my uninformed opinion.  In a WG session yesterday, the 
chair quoted King Solomon:

   According to legend, it is about two prostitutes who came before
   King Solomon, bringing with them a single baby boy. Each mother told the
   same story;  that both had given birth to a child, that one child was dead
   in the morning and that the live child was hers. Each mother accused the
   other, that after having discovered that her child had died during the
   night, its mother had stolen the other mother's live baby and replaced it
   with the dead child.

   In a dispute such as this, where there is no evidence or witness,
   King Solomon's solution is fascinating. After some deliberation, he called
   for a sword to be brought before him. He declared that there was only one
   fair solution, namely, that the live child should be split in two, each
   woman receiving half of the child.

Basically, the text permits everyone to say that the IETF is working 
on it and to produce as many deliverables to keep everyone happy.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jim Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:48:30 +0200

I support this charter as written.

Jim

-- On March 29, 2012 5:30:56 PM +0000 "Murray S. Kucherawy" 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [weirds] Post-BoF charter --

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:55:56 +0200

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 29/03/2012 19:30:
> Should the Working Group reach a point where it determines that the
> problem of producing a grand unified specification for both numbers
> and names appears to be intractable, it will be permitted to divide
> the problem into separate tasks and amend its milestones
> accordingly.
> 
> Milestones Nov 2012	Draft WEIRDS requirements to the IESG for
> publication as an Informational RFC.
> 
> Jul 2013	Draft WEIRDS specifications for registry queries and
> responses to the IESG for publication on the Standards Track.

While the above text provides a way for separation of the work on
these two registry types, the milestones are even more consolidated
than in the previous version. Does it imply, for instance, that name
and number registries will have the same set of queries? It also
doesn't reflect the agreement that work proceeds in parallel. Perhaps
a more elaborated set of deliverables could help?

Andrei

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:20:45 +0000

On Mar 30, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:

> Does it imply, for instance, that name
> and number registries will have the same set of queries?

If that is the case, we have a problem as there is no complete overlap.

-andy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:28:09 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrei Robachevsky
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:56 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> While the above text provides a way for separation of the work on these
> two registry types, the milestones are even more consolidated than in
> the previous version. Does it imply, for instance, that name and number
> registries will have the same set of queries? It also doesn't reflect
> the agreement that work proceeds in parallel. Perhaps a more elaborated
> set of deliverables could help?

My understanding is that the text itself is far more critical to get right than the milestones, so we can work with Pete to fix them, but it's not something to focus on.

I take it you're satisfied with the text portion?

-MSK

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:31:07 +1000

Hi Andrei,

I read those milestones as an intent for parallel work to hit the milestones at the same time.  The severance clause should be sufficient to create separate milestones if necessary.  Also note that the Jul 2013 milestone talks about specifications as a plural.  I don't think it's necessary to wordsmith in "separate drafts for names and numbers."  As discussed in the BOF, the requirements document should make that apparent (or not, as the case may be).

  Byron

On 30/03/2012, at 6:55 PM, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk91dRsACgkQljz5tZmtij+iSACfcO1Tizh2cnL6FE6B3CD730cX
> SJQAn0gN5spPQnXND84Zgu5si+9sUpJx
> =Orvc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Byron Ellacott                  email:           [email-masked]
Technical Director, APNIC       sip:        [email-masked]
http://www.apnic.net            phone:         +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
 * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:09:10 +0200

Byron,

Byron Ellacott wrote on 30/03/2012 11:31:
> Hi Andrei,
> 
> I read those milestones as an intent for parallel work to hit the
> milestones at the same time.  The severance clause should be
> sufficient to create separate milestones if necessary.  Also note
> that the Jul 2013 milestone talks about specifications as a plural.
> I don't think it's necessary to wordsmith in "separate drafts for
> names and numbers."  As discussed in the BOF, the requirements
> document should make that apparent (or not, as the case may be).
> 

Fair enough. I agree that we probably shouldn't overspecify the
workings of the WG here. If we lean more towards being generic, I
suggest that the second milestone reads as:

Jul 2013	Draft WEIRDS service and data framework specifications to the
IESG for publication on the Standards Track.

Andrei

>>>> Should the Working Group reach a point where it determines
>>>> that the problem of producing a grand unified specification
>>>> for both numbers and names appears to be intractable, it will
>>>> be permitted to divide the problem into separate tasks and
>>>> amend its milestones accordingly.
>>>> 
>>>> Milestones Nov 2012	Draft WEIRDS requirements to the IESG
>>>> for publication as an Informational RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> Jul 2013	Draft WEIRDS specifications for registry queries
>>>> and responses to the IESG for publication on the Standards
>>>> Track.
> 
> these two registry types, the milestones are even more
> consolidated than in the previous version. Does it imply, for
> instance, that name and number registries will have the same set of
> queries? It also doesn't reflect the agreement that work proceeds
> in parallel. Perhaps a more elaborated set of deliverables could
> help?
> 
> Andrei
>> _______________________________________________ weirds mailing
>> list [email-masked]

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:43:16 +1000

> IESG for publication on the Standards Track.

I'm comfortable with that, though I should also say I'm comfortable with the current wording, and with the charter as a whole as it stands.

  Byron

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:05:59 -0400

Hi,

> Yes.

[...]

I do not understand what any of your message means.  Could you perhaps
offer the analysis in a less analogical way?

Thanks,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:22:50 +0200

> Please comment, including posting expressions of support.

LGTM, support.

W

--
Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly.
    -- Radia Perlman.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:59:42 -0400

murray,

in response to your note with a draft charter text i've some reservations.

1.  "WHOIS has never been internationalized.  In the absence of formal
    specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized
    registration data have been adopted and deployed.  Providing a
    standards-based solution that scales well could minimize further
    proliferation of ad hoc solutions.

the word "solution" is not appropriate. "specification" is what wg's
write (most of the time).

the word "could" is a weak promise, when in fact a standards track
specification is intended to be made "mandatory to implement" in
language affecting the successors in interest to the original ddn nic
contract, and possibly adopted by other operators.

the definite article "a" presents risk of rat-holing on equivalent
choices of specification, and of non-adoption where in fact a
sub-linear scaling of variation is the underlying requirement.

the adjective "ad hoc" (whether "specifications" or "solutions") does
not reflect an engineering awareness of the specifications extant, nor
the switching cost to some as yet undefined formal specification.

a personal note -- i see no reason to ignore the state of the art for
han script or right-to-left scripts or combining scripts by the
respective names registries ab initio.

2. "WHOIS also has no data model ..."

this para is descriptive of a problem in theory, but the problem in
fact is more qualified. the impulse for this (fourth i think) attempt
to fix whois is not a generic desire for a standard, universal
publication format, but several desires for better tools for actual
use cases associated with claims of misuse (or misreporting) of
resources. to be slightly informal about this, no one gives a rodent's
rear end about the data published on port 43 for the .mil, or .edu or
.arpa, or .coop or .museum or .cat or ... name spaces. what we do will
enormously reduce the cost of detecting harmful agency if adopted by
only the com/net/org/biz/info (cnobi) and a rather small set of
iso3166 associated name spaces.

the universality or absence of rational scope in para 2 presents risk
that the pursuit of useful commonality of formats will not be limited
by benefit in fact.

3. "The WHOIS protocol does not offer any differential service ..."

i suggest this para be re-written as a requirement for authentication,
access, and availability, the standard triad, for better issue
integration with the security directorate, as this isn't
diffserv-or-qos-in-hosts.

4. "Various attempts to solve ..."

for history of problem reasons i'd prefer a recitation of the dates
and a key phrase for each of the prior attemtps rather than a history
limited to the iris wg's experiences.

5. "In recent years, ARIN and RIPE NCC have ..."

fine. i see no reason not to suggest retirement of tcp/43 for
stuff/http/tcp/80*, nor the implicit reference to a set of constraints
for communications over http.

6. "This Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a
    service, and standardize a single data framework. ..."

i see no necessity in the singular, outside of the set of resources
mentioned in #2, supra.

    "The data shall have one mandatory format ..."

i've the same concern.

...

10. "Should the Working Group reach a point where ..."

i support this, but i think the freedom to pursue realizable goals is
not best limited to a strings-or-integers reserved independence, and
this reserved independence should be present within at least one of
these subject matter domains, as solving the cnobi++ problem really is
more important than solving non-problems.

i prefer to see some of the above changes worked into the charter.

-e

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:32:21 -0700

Hi Andrew,
>offer the analysis in a less analogical way?

There isn't any incentive favoring a question about whether to unify 
or not to get resolved.  I am neither for nor against a grand 
unification specification.

I'll +0 the amended proposed charter.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:48:04 +0200

> write (most of the time).

Can we please avoid wordsmithing the details of this charter? We are now on version 7 and continued detailed refinement may only keep us on this subject instead of moving on to the actual specifications.

The request was for objections/comments to the prenuptial agreement.

> more important than solving non-problems.

As usual, Eric, you challenge my reading comprehension skills. :)

-andy

---

From: Alan Maitland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:10:57 -0600

> Please comment, including posting expressions of support.

I support this charter version.

Alan Maitland

---

From: Don Blumenthal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:46:55 -0400

This version does an excellent job of moving the process along and protecting all
Interests.

+1

Don

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:43:44 -0400

> or not to get resolved.

Oh, I see.  I also disagree.

The incentive to get it resolved in practice (not as a matter of
procedure) is just the desire of the interested parties to use the
same protocol.  If they don't actually have that desire -- that is, if
they cannot agree, which is an empirical matter -- then the resolution
is "not unify".  A chair (and, frankly, also an AD) in that case has a
strong incentive to say, "You guys are getting divorced," unless
they're the sort of chair or AD that likes to tolerate never ending,
fractious working groups.  There is no rule we can propose to solve
this latter problem, which is basically a failure of management.

And, of course, if they (we) all get their (our) act together and
unify in practice, then the resolution is "unify".

I do not believe, and have never believed, that WG charters are there
as forcing functions for WGs.  When one tries that, what almost always
happens is that the WG gets rechartered when it can't meet its goals,
because there's almost always a sunk cost people can't walk away from.
At some point, we have to trust in good leadership to kill off work
that isn't going anywhere.  That's a matter of judgement and practice,
not rules.

Best,

Andrew "Blue and Brown books forever!" Sullivan

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:30:31 -0700

Hi Andrew,
>procedure) is just the desire of the interested parties to use the

Agreed.

Yes.

>that isn't going anywhere.  That's a matter of judgement and practice,

Agreed.

Regards,
-sm