[Crisp] Re: Minutes of Seoul Mtg

[April Marine <[e-mail]>]

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