Re: [Crisp] Re: Minutes of Seoul Mtg

[April Marine <[e-mail]>]

thanks Leslie, got it. :)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>
> 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