Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects
draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-06
Yes
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-10-30)
Unknown
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.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-10-30)
Unknown
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).
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2014-10-29)
Unknown
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.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2014-10-29)
Unknown
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.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2014-10-30)
Unknown
I'm with Benoit and Alissa here. Not everything needs to be an RFC.