[Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft

[Ted Hardie]

> no, I've asked for the requirement to be removed. only you and the draft
> author have said no. There has been almost no discussion on this list on
> or about the points in the requirements draft. I am stating that these
> requirements are not fully baked and are not nearly cooked enough for
> passing them off to the IESG.

Well, there is clearly now discussion the list about the requirements
and it is clear that others have opinions to add to the mix; if
you were worried you were talking to only Andy or me, you can stop
:).

As you may have seen in my comment on Next Steps, I believe the
current set of discussions will require a new draft of the
requirements document, which should go through working group last
call.  This document, in other words, will not go to the IESG.


> none of the other requirements have conditions that require all members of
> the mesh to participate in a query. this type of query does deserve
> special attention because of the negative impact it could bring to those
> who provide crip resolution service.

Your belief about the negative impact is now well documented, but
given the requirements in 3.1.11 for generalized query distribution
and the restrictions currently in place or in discussion 3.2.3, there
still seems to me some fundamental assumption behind this that has not
been captured.  I continue to urge you to send text on this
requirement so it can be evaluated in the full context of the
requiremetns.


> 
> for these reasons I request that 3.2.3 be removed as a requirement,
> otherwise please enumerate the clear reasons you have eluded to for
> retaining this functionality.

There are clear reasons for wanting it in both IPR and law enforcement
contexts (these would, of course, be subject to the authorization
requirements already in place).  I have also seen a case where a
contractor working on behalf of small businesses had used his own data
for domain ownership to shortcut the existing system; when his
business went under, exactly this kind of search was necessary.  While
this is a far more unusual case (and largely related to a "wrong"
registration in the first place) than would be law enforcement, it can
and does happen.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie