<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><br></div>I agree we need to provide a longer time for this.<div><br></div><div>I suggest we set a <b>Review Phase until 20 March. </b></div><div><br></div><div>After that date, depending on the nature of comments we may either extend the Review Phase or call for a Last Call to seal the document.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards<br><br><div dir="ltr">Filiz</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 4 Mar 2020, at 05:08, Chris Caputo <ccaputo@alt.net> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 04.03.2020 00:56, Chris Caputo wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, Terry Sweetser wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I've like to give some time on the weekend, so please bear with me until next week.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Absolutely and thank you.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>What about having a fixed cut-off date. Would 2020-03-20 work for everyone?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>To be courteous, I recommend we give task force members a good chance to </span><br><span>review and chime in over the course of the next week or two, as they are </span><br><span>able to.  We just gave everyone a fair sized document with a bunch of </span><br><span>changes to devour and there may be some questions and changes requested </span><br><span>along the way as it gets reviewed.  Or they might rejected it altogether.  </span><br><span>:-)</span><br><span></span><br><span>If everyone loves it (my hope!) maybe we would be able to wrap it up close </span><br><span>to the original goal of about 6 months from September.</span><br><span></span><br><span>As an overview, here is what the outline of the draft looks like.</span><br><span></span><br><span>---</span><br><span></span><br><span>1) Background</span><br><span></span><br><span>2) Scope</span><br><span></span><br><span>3) Overarching Principles</span><br><span></span><br><span>3.1) Purpose of PeeringDB</span><br><span>3.2) Expectations</span><br><span>3.3) Admin Committee</span><br><span>3.4) Conflicted Data</span><br><span></span><br><span>4) User Interface Elements of PeeringDB</span><br><span></span><br><span>4.1) Organizations</span><br><span>4.2) Facilities</span><br><span>4.3) Internet Exchanges</span><br><span>4.4) Networks </span><br><span>4.5) Points of Contact</span><br><span>4.6) Public Peering Exchange Points</span><br><span>4.7) Private Peering Facilities</span><br><span>4.8) LAN</span><br><span>4.9) Prefixes</span><br><span>4.10) Local Facilities and Exchanges</span><br><span></span><br><span>5) Data Elements in PeeringDB</span><br><span></span><br><span>5.1) Single-party Data Elements</span><br><span></span><br><span>5.1.1) as_set</span><br><span>5.1.2) fac</span><br><span>5.1.3) ix</span><br><span>5.1.4) ixlan</span><br><span>5.1.5) ixpfx</span><br><span>5.1.6) net</span><br><span>5.1.7) org</span><br><span>5.1.8) poc</span><br><span></span><br><span>5.2) Multi-party Data Elements</span><br><span></span><br><span>5.2.1) netixlan</span><br><span>5.2.2) ixfac</span><br><span>5.2.3) netfac</span><br><span></span><br><span>6) Conflicted Data Resolution Recommendations</span><br><span></span><br><span>6.1) netixlan</span><br><span>6.2) ixfac & netfac</span><br><span></span><br><span>7) Action Items</span><br><span></span><br><span>7.1) "netixlan" dependency on "ix", "ixlan", and "ixpfx"</span><br><span>7.2) "ixfac" and "netfac" dependency on "fac"</span><br><span></span><br><span>---</span><br><span></span><br><span>Thanks,</span><br><span>Chris</span><br><span>-- </span><br><span>DataOwnership-TF mailing list</span><br><span>DataOwnership-TF@lists.peeringdb.com</span><br><span>https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>