Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects
RFC 7485

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Pete Resnick) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-30)
No email
send info
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).

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-30)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) Abstain

Comment (2014-10-30)
No email
send info
I'm with Benoit and Alissa here.  Not everything needs to be an RFC.

Alissa Cooper Abstain

Comment (2014-10-29)
No email
send info
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 Abstain

Comment (2014-10-29)
No email
send info
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.