Re: [Crisp] Re: Minutes of Seoul Mtg

[Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>]

One nit...

> George Michaelson suggests requiring E.164 would be "bold and useful".
> Marcos does not want to eliminate potential users
> Shane suggests it's not hard and makes it hard on client users
> Andy notes that domain registries exist who don't have valid data
> Jakob Schlyter notes that a '+' is enough to differentiate between
> E.164 and other formats
> Richard Shockey specifies that a '+' means E.164, and otherwise not


I think it should be specified that these comments applied
to the phone number related elements (<phone>, <fax>).  Not
everyone on the planet knows that E.164 is the specification for
globally routable phone number formats.

Leslie.

April Marine wrote:

> and while I'm bugging you, any comments on the minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, April Marine wrote:
> 
> 
>>Here are the minutes (many thanks to Shane Kerr). Pls take a moment to
>>look a them and send any corrections.  I hope to send them along to the
>>Secretariat this week.
>>
>>thanks!
>>A.
>>
>>
>>
>>CRISP minutes
>>Tuesday, 2004-03-02 09:00 to 11:30
>>
>>CHAIRS:
>>April Marine [e-mail]
>>George Michaelson [e-mail]
>>
>>Minutes: Shane Kerr
>>
>>o Welcome, Agenda Bashing, Status Update
>>        Chairs - 10 min
>>
>>Status:
>>requirements now RFC
>>iris-(core|dreg|beep) about to be submitted for WG last call
>>
>>o Update on latest drafts:
>>         draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-05.txt
>>         draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg-05.txt
>>         draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-05.txt
>>
>>
>>   Changes centered around XML mechanics:
>>        Andy Newton - 30 min
>>
>>   Changes centered around internationalization and language issues:
>>        Marcos Sanz - 30 min
>>
>>George Michaelson suggests requiring E.164 would be "bold and useful".
>>Marcos does not want to eliminate potential users
>>Shane suggests it's not hard and makes it hard on client users
>>Andy notes that domain registries exist who don't have valid data
>>Jakob Schlyter notes that a '+' is enough to differentiate between
>>E.164 and other formats
>>Richard Shockey specifies that a '+' means E.164, and otherwise not
>>
>>Consensus: if use a '+', MUST be E.164
>>
>>o Next Steps - 10 min
>>
>>April says these docs will be sent to WG last call within 2 weeks.
>>
>>o Status of draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-05.txt
>>
>>        Ed Lewis stars as Cathy Murphy - 20 mins
>>
>>Ted Hardie: what about registries "below" the RIR? Would the "number
>>resource registry" point to the RIR or the other organization?
>>Ed: don't know, can't remember
>>Ted: As long as it's consistent, it doesn't matter
>>George: We should specify
>>
>>Marcos: Useful if areg and dreg could concur on definitions?  For
>>example, contact objects?
>>Andy: I don't know. Don't want to weigh down RIRs with domain registry policy.
>>Shane: Can we reference the dreg from the areg?
>>Andy: I don't think it buys you a lot.
>>
>>John Klensin: Why are we using first name, middle name, last name?
>>Ed: We removed that and replaced with a "common name".
>>John: We need a "surname" field, for sorting and searching.  If we can
>>do better, we should, but we need something.
>>George: There is an IETF RFC that references this.  I will look for this.
>>
>>Patrik [jabber]: People interested in name conversion should look at
>>RFC2426, RFC2218
>>
>>Shane: pretty much done with address requirements, will send in a few weeks
>>
>>o Nesting text for IP ranges
>>
>>        Engin Gunduz - 5 mins
>>
>>Engin: Last week sent test to mailing list.  Part was included in
>>areg, the rest will go into address requirements. Includes what we
>>think are all address registry needs. Defines less specific, more
>>specific, etc. Covers requirements for searching on these, for RIPE
>>NCC.
>>
>>Andy: Need to change more/less/etc. terminology to understand equivalences.
>>George: Need to do more to cover cases that don't fit the
>>more/less/etc. behavior?
>>Andy: Yes.  Maybe two more terms to describe the administrative-only
>>relationships.
>>
>>o Other topics (if any arise)
>>
>>Shane: Interested in what the plans are for production services.
>>John: Wants to know what the feedback is, to explain to GNSO where we are.
>>
>>Patrik: bringing to RIPE meeting in May?
>>Shane: Yes
>>Scott Hollenbeck: what is the question?
>>Shane: what services you will be bringing on-line, and when? folks pls
>>discuss after adjourn.
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crisp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp


_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp