Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes

["Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@xxxxxxxx>]

for section 2.2, 

as defined in draft-ietf-appsawg3536bis-06[1] and RFC 5890[2]. 

 

[Editor note: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-06 is not a RFC yet and should not 
be considered as a stable reference. Alternatively we could simply cite the 
original RFC 3536.]



The draft (draft-ietf-appsawg3536bis-06) will soon become RFC6365.
It is currently in the state of Auth48.
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6365.txt)

so you may change  draft-ietf-appsawg3536bis-06 to RFC6365 in the wording.


Jiankang Yao

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
To: "Ird" <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:17 AM
Subject: RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes


> Attached please find a few redlines/comments on the sections of the draft 
> report we did not discuss this morning.  All are minor/editorial in nature.  
> 
> Steve Metalitz 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M Galvin
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:41 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Ird
> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes
> 
> 
> I think that one could interpret the change away from the 4 models to a 
> specific recommendation for future work to be a substantive change.
> 
> Personally, I could go either way on it, so I'm interested in the opinions of 
> others.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- On August 29, 2011 12:15:51 PM -0700 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote 
> regarding Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes --
> 
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Did we make substantive changes between the interim and final (I don't 
>> remember off hand)?  If so, I think doing another community review is 
>> warranted.  If not, I would leave it to the chartering organizations.  
>> And of course there will be a community review before the Board 
>> considers any recommendations anyway.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 29 Aug 2011, at 11:09, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Jim,
>> >
>> > Just a note for the WG to consider.  As you may recall, our Interim 
>> > Report was published for Public Comment.  The WG should decide 
>> > whether the Final Report also will be published for Public Comment 
>> > for 30 days before it is finalized.  I should have mentioned that in 
>> > today's meeting.  So, what this would mean, if the WG agrees, is 
>> > that the Report (if it is ready) could be published for Public 
>> > Comment on 30 September and there could be a public session in Dakar 
>> > that could be part of the public comment process.  Then, based on 
>> > the comments the WG to decide if the Report needs to be modified. If 
>> > not, it can go directly to the GNSO Council and the SSAC to consider 
>> > and approve.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Julie
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/29/11 1:51 PM, "Jim Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since I won't be available for this next call, it was also proposed 
>> >> at the end of this meeting that the agenda for the next meeting 
>> >> will be as follows.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 0. Steve Sheng will produce a revised, redlined document by 
>> >> Tuesday, 6 September, so the working group has time to prepare for 
>> >> the next meeting.  He will do his best to draft as much remaining 
>> >> text as he can based on the discussion we have had to date.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Agenda:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Review Steve Sheng's editorial requests as documented in the 
>> >> draft final report.  Please be sure to review the final document 
>> >> and come prepared with suggestions it.  Priority and preference 
>> >> will be given to suggested changes submitted to the mailing list in 
>> >> advance of the meeting.
>> >>
>> >> 2. If time permits, discuss any questions or suggestions on any of 
>> >> the text.  Priority and preference will be given to questions and 
>> >> suggestions that are submitted to the mailing list in advance of 
>> >> the meeting.
>> >>
>> >> 3. We have the opportunity to be done and come to closure by 30 
>> >> September.  We should consider if we are on track to do this.  We 
>> >> don't have to make a decision about this meeting but it would be 
>> >> helpful to do a realistic self-assessment.
>> >>
>> >> If we can meet the 30 September deadline then we will have the 
>> >> opportunity to move towards declaring success and requesting formal 
>> >> actions in Dakar.  Note that the next formal step for our work is 
>> >> to have it reviewed and accepted by both the GNSO and the SSAC, 
>> >> since they are the co-sponsoring SO/AC.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- On August 29, 2011 9:10:44 AM -0700 Julie Hedlund 
>> >> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG 
>> >> Call 29 August: Actions/Notes --
>> >>
>> >>> Dear IRD-WG members,
>> >>>
>> >>> Here are some brief notes from today¹s meeting.  The full
>> >>> transcript and recording also will be provided.    Our next call
>> >>> will be Monday, 12 September at 1500 UTC/0800 PDT/1100 EDT.  The 
>> >>> teleconference details will be sent with the reminder.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Julie
>> >>>
>> >>> Attendees:  Scott Austin; Avri Doria, Jim Galvin, Rafik Dammak, 
>> >>> Bob Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz, Owen Smigelski; Glen de 
>> >>> Saint-Gery, Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello
>> >>>
>> >>> Actions:  Steve Sheng will revised the draft report based on the 
>> >>> discussion.  (See below.)  Also fill in text where possible.
>> >>> Produce a redlined document by Tuesday the 6th.
>> >>>
>> >>> Notes
>> >>>
>> >>> Recommendations (starting on page 15 of the document):
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  € Develop a data model:  Aren¹t some data elements already 
>> >>> specified?  There isn¹t total agreement on the elements.  We may 
>> >>> not want to be overly prescriptive concerning what the baseline 
>> >>> should be, but the WG could propose something.  In the last 
>> >>> sentence change ³tagging information² to ³tagging elements².
>> >>> Like the phrase ³ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with 
>> >>> the entire ICANN community...²  (Add entire ³ICANN² in the 
>> >>> existing sentence.)  Is the term ³data model² confusing in the 
>> >>> context of this document?  Look through the document to make sure 
>> >>> we are consistent in how we use the term and define it when it is 
>> >>> first used in the document.  We have discussed using XML as a 
>> >>> representation language ‹ should it be in this recommendation?  
>> >>> The choice of a representation language would more properly belong 
>> >>> to the IETF.  Not sure the IETF should be involved in the 
>> >>> formalization of the representation language, but would be 
>> >>> interested in the protocol (versus the data).
>> >>>  € Issues Report:  The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report 
>> >>> (should be clear in this document).  The SSAC also can request an 
>> >>> Issues Report, as can the ccNSO.  ³The GNSO Council or the SSAC 
>> >>> should request an Issues Report...²  (See ICANN Bylaws at
>> >>> http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.)  May want to include 
>> >>> here some of the elements that should be included in an Issues 
>> >>> Report.  Although the WG should have given specific advice 
>> >>> concerning how to approach transliteration/translation 
>> >>> requirements, but it did not produce a consensus on how to proceed 
>> >>> on these specification. The question of who should provide 
>> >>> transliteration/translation could be a policy issue, which is why 
>> >>> there is a recommendation for an Issues Report.
>> >>> Editorial note:  Make sure that the language in this 
>> >>> recommendation meets the requirements in the Bylaws and also check 
>> >>> it against the recommendations for changes to the PDP procedures 
>> >>> from the PPSC-PDP work team (Policy Staff Support -- Marika). € 
>> >>> Identify a directory service: Need clarification.
>> >>>  Make it clear that it is referencing a registration data 
>> >>> directory service. Draw an important distinction between the 
>> >>> protocol and the service. ICANN should define the service and 
>> >>> separate it from the protocol that is currently in use.  We have 
>> >>> identified a deficiency that the service definition doesn¹t exist 
>> >>> so we are saying that ICANN needs to specify the service 
>> >>> definition.  Change ³work with ICANN and the technical community² 
>> >>> and ³propose² not ³identify² a ³registration data directory 
>> >>> service.²  This is one piece of a very large set of work at ICANN 
>> >>> and in the community.  The recommendation should say specifically 
>> >>> that this is part of other work.  Change the trailing phrase 
>> >>> ³meetings the needs...enumerated in this report AND (add this) the 
>> >>> WHOIS Service Requirements. Include language that says that 
>> >>> internationalization should be part of that work.  Reference the 
>> >>> Board¹s specific request for this work.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>