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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Andrew,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:27 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] data fields and purpose (was Re: Notes and action items from today's meeting)

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:
[Chuck Gomes] As chair I am trying to be very cautious about making any assumptions in advance of working group deliberation.

    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
[Chuck Gomes] It is my personal goal as chair and I think the goal of the leadership team that we diligently try to avoid re-doing work that has already been done.  It is appropriate for us to question and debate conclusions that were reached by other groups but let's avoid redoing work.  If others' work is deemed to be incomplete, that would be a different case.

    2.  There is no promise that the registration data available will
    remain stable: new policies could bring new fields.
[Chuck Gomes] Agreed.  Hopefully, any requirements we recommend will be flexible enough to accommodate future needs.

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.
[Chuck Gomes] This is a very constructive suggestion so I request a volunteer to do this so that when we get to an applicable point in our work, it will be readily available.  If anyone is willing to take on this task, please let us know.

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
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg