Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Draft Presentation for Cartagena

["James M. Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I take your point.  I certainly don't want to overreach.  I don't want  
"improving the dialogue" to be our mission, per se, what I want is for  
us to use a consistent set of terminology and to use it well.
While it may be true that the phrase "directory services" introduces  
its own set of additional issues, the same is true for the use of  
WHOIS.  As you know, people use WHOIS to refer to both the protocol  
and the data model, which is itself confusing.
I think we can use the phrase "directory services" to refer to the  
whole system and then observe that we're addressing two particular  
aspects of it: replacing the WHOIS protocol and updating the  
registration data model.
Does this sound reasonable to you?

Jim




On Nov 18, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> IRD is a dense topic to present to an audience unfamiliar with the  
> numerous
> issues this WG has discussed. While I have a keen interest in  
> shifting focus
> from Whois to directory, I wonder if this is the best time or  
> opportunity to
> (as you say) improve the dialogue?
>
> Directory services opens a much broader set of issues than
> internationalizing registration data, including authentication, access
> control/authorization, and auditing. If we use this terminology in  
> the IRD
> WG's work products, will be be open to criticism that we are  
> overreaching?
> I believe there are other Whois sessions in Cartagena and wonder if  
> this
> discussion is better situated elsewhere?
>
>
> On 11/17/10 9:05 PM, "James M Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I agree that where it's important to be talking about the WHOIS
> > protocol we should say "WHOIS protocol".  For example, when we want  
> > to
> > say that the WHOIS protocol is insufficient for the future needs of
> > directory services, we should say that just as I did here.  Other  
> > than
> > that, I think the recommendations should use the more generic
> > vernacular primarily because if we want to improve discussion about
> > this topic in general we have to get people to stop saying WHOIS.   
> > We,
> > at least, need to do our part to improve the dialogue.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Jim.  Just one question: I had thought that we talked about
> > > not using
> > > Whois to mean directory services in general, but that we could still
> > > use
> > > "WHOIS protocol" to mean just that.  Is that not the case?  If not,
> > > what do
> > > we use instead of WHOIS protocol?
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > > Julie
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/17/10 6:17 PM, "Jim Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One more important thing we need to include is to clearly change  
> > > > the
> > > > vernacular.  On slide 3, Introduction, the phrase "in WHOIS  
> > > > services"
> > > > is highlighted in red.  I assume that's because during the
> > > > presentation you are going to introduce the phrase "directory
> > > > service".  Further, you'll explain that WHOIS is used to refer to
> > > > both
> > > > a protocol and a data model.
> > > >
> > > > With that, we need to be absolutely clear throughout the  
> > > > presentation
> > > > to use the phrases "directory service" and "registration data",
> > > > expressly not using the phrase WHOIS.
> > > >
> > > > There is one use of directory services and the rest say WHOIS.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear IRD-WG members,
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the draft presentation for Cartagena for your review,  
> > > > > which
> > > > > includes the changes I received from Owen.  Please respond with  
> > > > > any
> > > > > changes by COB this Thursday, 18 November so that I can prepare a
> > > > > revised draft for review prior to the discussion on our call on
> > > > > Monday, 22 November at 1600 UTC (0800 PST/1100 EST).  Please feel
> > > > > free to enter changes directly into the document and I will
> > > > > reconcile them with other comments received into one draft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you very much for your assistance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Julie
> > > > >
> > > > > <Internationalized Registration Data Interim Report Presentation
> > > > > Draft 15 Nov 2010.ppt>