Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects
draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-06

[Ballot comment]

I think there is no harm at all in this being an RFC and using
abstain to nitpick doesn't seem right (or at least, I don't
understand why the stated abstains aren't nitpicking).

[Ballot comment]
I don't see any mention of privacy concerns with ant of the elements suggested for the RDAP model in this draft.  Although I think the sec and response drafts should be the ones to state what actions can be taken, this one describes the elements that should be in the data model (but apparently doesn't match up exactly), so noting which are privacy sensitive might be helpful.  I would have thought that was one of the motivators for this work, but that wasn't included in the description for section 1.

I do think this change should be made, but also think the changes are more important in the sec and response drafts.

[Ballot comment]
I'm with Barry -- this seems like it would have made more sense if published on a wiki, as a research paper, or in a slide deck. If the choices made in the protocol documents actually linked back to these findings for justification, I might see it differently, but at present there does not seem to be much connection between these findings and some of the design decisions made in the protocol. The data formats in the protocol don't seem to support every field that was discovered in this study, nor does there seem to be any consistent metric that was used for deciding whether to include a particular field based on its prevalence in these findings.

[Ballot comment]
I see no value in publishing this document as an RFC.  I think it would be great to keep the information in the wiki for all to peruse, but I don't think anyone will want to read the RFC a year from now, much less several years from now.  But I understand that this has been discussed and decided, so I will accept that I'm in the rough, and will abstain.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registration Data Access Protocol Object Inventory Analysis) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Web Extensible Internet
Registration Data Service WG (weirds) to consider the following document:
- 'Registration Data Access Protocol Object Inventory Analysis'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  WHOIS output objects from registries (including both Regional
  Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)) were
  collected and analyzed.  This document describes the statistical
  analysis process and result of existing WHOIS information.  The
  purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to
  facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data
  Access Protocol (RDAP) responses.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Murray Kucherawy (WEIRDS co-chair).
The responsible Area Director is Pete Resnick.

  WHOIS output objects from registries (including both Regional
  Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)) were
  collected and analyzed.  This document describes the statistical
  analysis process and result of existing WHOIS information.  The
  purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to
  facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data
  Access Protocol (RDAP) responses.

The document is seeking Informational status as it merely contains a summary of research done that justified design decisions made in other WEIRDS WG documents.  It does not describe IETF process or any new protocol work, nor does it describe an experiment.

2. Review and Consensus

The document received light review, but its content is well understood by the entire working group, was presented and discussed during at least two meetings, and has always been non-controversial.  I would describe the consensus as "good but quiet"; the WG had much more meaty things on which to focus.

Early discussion of the document centered around whether to publish it at all.  After discussion with our Area Director who really forced the WG to consider that question, consensus of the WG is that this is useful work to record as it draws a line from WHOIS to RDAP explaining some of the choices found in other documents.  It may also be referenced by ICANN work as their policies transition from WHOIS to RDAP.

No external reviews are warranted.

3. Intellectual Property

Four of the five authors have affirmed that they are submitting this document in compliance with BCPs 78 and 79.  The fifth (Servin) has not responded yet.

There was no on-list discussion of IPR matters other than an explicit request by the WG co-chairs to disclose any IPR issues; none were reported.

4. Other Points

Nothing of note.  No downrefs, no IANA actions.

The RFC Editor should be advised that the appendix tracking document changes should be deleted prior to publication.