Subject: [regext] RDAP RFC Update - PS or DS?

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:23:01 +0000

Folks, during the IETF meeting we talked a little bit about the possibility of re-doing the RDAP protocol specs to address clarifications and errata identified as a result of implementation experience. We didn't have a lot of time to talk through the possibilities, so I thought I'd start something here.

We spoke a bit in the room about the possibility of re-spinning the documents as Proposed Standard RFCs. However, as long as we stick to fixing errata, dealing with clarifications, etc., and not adding new features, we could make a case for document updates with the goal of producing Draft Standard RFCs. I believe we have enough implementation experience to meet the requirements for publication as Draft Standards (see Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026), so let me throw that out there. Should we take on the update process with a goal of producing Draft Standards, or do we need to make more substantial changes that require a Proposed Standard re-do?

Scott

---

From: Gavin Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 17:47:42 +0100

Hi Scott,

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between a Draft Standard and a Proposed Standard?

+1 either way!

G.

> On 1 Aug 2019, at 17:23, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

--
Gavin Brown
Chief Innovation Officer
CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
https://www.centralnicgroup.com/
+44.7548243029

CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: Saddlers House, Gutter Lane, London EC2V 6AE.

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:09:01 -0500

> Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between a Draft Standard and a Proposed Standard?

"Draft Standard" was mostly discontinued in 2011, so just "Standard".

But basically the difference between Proposed Standard and just Standard 
is verified existence of at least two independent operating 
implementations **with widespread deployment and successful operational 
experience.**
(emphasis mine for the last part, because, if back to EPP discussion, 
one has to think about what widespread means in case of closed business 
setup like registry-registrar, do you count by number of registries? 
number of registrars? number of domains affected by the change? etc.)

In more details, see RFC6410:

This document changes the Internet Standards Process defined in RFC
    2026 [1].  In recent years, the Internet Engineering Task Force
    (IETF) witnessed difficulty advancing documents through the maturity
    levels: Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, and finally Standard.

...

The primary aspect of this change is to revise the requirements for
    advancement beyond Proposed Standard.  RFC 2026 [1] requires a report
    that documents interoperability between at least two implementations
    from different code bases as an interim step ("Draft Standard")
    before a specification can be advanced further to the third and final
    maturity level ("Standard") based on widespread deployment and use.
    In contrast, this document requires measuring interoperability
    through widespread deployment of multiple implementations from
    different code bases, thus condensing the two separate metrics into
    one.

...

This document replaces the three-tier maturity ladder defined in RFC
    2026 [1] with a two-tier maturity ladder.  Specifications become
    Internet Standards through a set of two maturity levels known as the
    "Standards Track".  These maturity levels are "Proposed Standard" and
    "Internet Standard".
-- 
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:58:00 +0200

Hi Scott,

it seems to me that the choice depends on the extent of the changes to 
be made. If the update process involves any change with limited impact 
on both client and server implementations a Draft Standard appears more 
suitable, otherwise we should opt for a Proposed Standard.

At present, the only significant update coming on my mind which should 
require a Proposed Standard is the possible jCard replacement.

Best,

mario

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Servizi Internet e Sviluppo Tecnologico
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
E-Mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo