[Crisp] Minutes of Seoul Mtg

[April Marine <[e-mail]>]

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