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

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes. I'm a big fan of "anticipatory awareness".


On 11/18/10 8:59 AM, "James M Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>