[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] data fields and purpose (was Re: Notes and action items from today's meeting)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:53:47PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Benny,
> 
> That is not totally true.  They can be changed if consensus policy is approved that requires that.  That could be a result of our PDP.
> 

It could be, but I am arguing that we should start with a working
assumption that we won't do that.  There are two reasons for this:

    1.  Not all data collected by registries need be accessible via
    RDS.  So, we can take the data collected as a given, and then
    simply pick from what's already available.  As I think Scott
    Hollenbeck pointed out, the WEIRDS WG in the IETF already did a
    survey: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7485#section-5.  I think it
    would be an enormous waste of everyone's time to re-do that work.

    2.  There is no promise that the registration data available will
    remain stable: new policies could bring new fields.

That is why I propose that we take the inventory in RFC 7485 as a
given.  If as we work with that set, we find over and over that
there's something we want to see that we don't have, _that_ would tell
us that there's a new field that we might want.  But I don't think we
should try to build such a list up front, because it will take a lot
of time and will not preclude us later discovering other things we may
or may not want.

If we really want to do something useful for the future, we could
specify considerations for what to do with a new consensus-policy
field in registration data, because that wouldn't automatically
duplicate work that others have already done.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com