Subject: Re: [weirds] Milestone for draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 13:55:52 +0800

Since the response draft has a reference of the inventory draft, I suggest
to complete it before the response draft. Maybe July or August is
appropriate.

Regards,

Linlin

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [weirds] Milestone for draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory

Hi there,

Now that we have adopted the above draft as a WG document, we need to add it
to our charter with a projected milestone.  Could someone suggest a month by
which we could reasonably commit to being done with it?

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 17:26:01 -0700

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Linlin Zhou <[email-masked]> wrote:

> appropriate.****
This document has four authors.  Are they all satisfied with an August
milestone?

The absence of more than one reply to this question has me worried.  Are
there any other opinions about this?  Will we have enough reviewers to be
able to move the document forward?

-MSK, WEIRDS co-chair

---

From: Ning Kong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:56:43 +0800

> 
> This document has four authors.  Are they all satisfied with an August milestone?

I think the milestone of draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory should be earlier than the one of draft-ietf-weirds-json-response. So either August or July is fine.

Cheers,
Ning

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:55:56 -0500

On 4/29/13 10:09 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Now that we have adopted the above draft as a WG document, we need to 
> add it to our charter with a projected milestone.  Could someone 
> suggest a month by which we could reasonably commit to being done with it?

Folks:

Murray forwarded the request for the milestone, but I have a question:

Do we really think that this document is going to be of interest to 
anyone else a year or more from now? My impression is that this is 
important internal work product for the WG, that it is of great use to 
the WG in the preparation of the protocol and probably warrants a huge 
acknowledgment in our documents, but it's not clear to me that it is 
going to be of any particular interest to the rest of the community as a 
stable publication. I can imagine needing it for future WEIRDS 
development, but then it will likely need to be updated by re-running 
the survey to see the current data.

Can someone explain to me why this would be useful as a permanent 
publication?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:45 +0800

> Do we really think that this document is going to be of interest to anyone
else a
> year or more from now? My impression is that this is important internal
work
> product for the WG, that it is of great use to the WG in the preparation
of the
> protocol and probably warrants a huge acknowledgment in our documents, but
> it's not clear to me that it is going to be of any particular interest to
the rest of
> the community as a stable publication. I can imagine needing it for future
> WEIRDS development, but then it will likely need to be updated by
re-running
> Can someone explain to me why this would be useful as a permanent
Firstly, I think this inventory draft is a useful reference for response
draft. It helps make the choices of the objects adopted by the response
draft.

When we develop RDAP protocols, we use the JSON/XML data format defined in
response draft for data transfer. We found that we also need a object name
mapping rules for displaying object names in various clients. So I feel that
the inventory draft may give us a suggestion on picking the most popular
names in the data presentation layer. This is the second reason I think it
is useful.

The current inventory results reflect some data distribution trends and user
preference of the old WHOIS. What I am guessing is that re-running survey
will have almost the same results unless adopting a different approach. We
have the data, and I think what we can dig more from the data is more
important.

Regards,
Linlin

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:05:49 -0500

On 5/21/13 7:47 PM, Linlin Zhou wrote:
>> important internal work product for the WG, that it is of great use 
>> to the WG in the preparation of the protocol and probably warrants a 
>> huge acknowledgment in our documents, but it's not clear to me that 
>> it is going to be of any particular interest to the rest of the 
>> community as a stable publication. I can imagine needing it for 
>> future WEIRDS development, but then it will likely need to be updated 
>> by re-running the survey to see the current data.
>>
> Firstly, I think this inventory draft is a useful reference for 
> response draft. It helps make the choices of the objects adopted by 
> the response draft.

I understood that this was the intention, but I don't see *why* that 
means that we need to publish the inventory draft. Again, will this be 
of interest to other people eventually, or be useful for future work.

> When we develop RDAP protocols, we use the JSON/XML data format 
> defined in response draft for data transfer. We found that we also 
> need a object name mapping rules for displaying object names in 
> various clients. So I feel that the inventory draft may give us a 
> suggestion on picking the most popular names in the data presentation 
> layer. This is the second reason I think it is useful.

But again, won't this be folded into the RDAP documents? Is there a need 
to keep this document separately?

> The current inventory results reflect some data distribution trends 
> and user preference of the old WHOIS. What I am guessing is that 
> re-running survey will have almost the same results unless adopting a 
> different approach. We have the data, and I think what we can dig more 
> from the data is more important.

OK.

Still, I'd like to understand why this is useful to publish. If others 
in the WG can explain, that would be helpful.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 16:31:00 +0000

>in the WG can explain, that would be helpful.

Pete,

One of the questions that repeatedly comes up in discussions of the RDAP
data model is one of "have you considered X" where X is some data element
in a subset of Whois services. It is very helpful to point people to the
inventory draft to answer those types of questions. Maybe another way of
putting it is that the inventory draft shows the outside world that we did
our homework.

-andy