Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94

"Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> Thu, 05 November 2015 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C651ACCDF for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 02:23:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OyZv5MeCXiLo for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 02:23:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A501ACCDE for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 02:23:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zll (unknown [218.241.111.73]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0B5gDg1LjtWeN1uBg--.13914S2; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:23:49 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:24:24 +0800
From: "Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
To: "Ulrich Wisser" <ulrich@wisser.se>, "eppext@ietf.org" <EppExt@ietf.org>
References: <CAJ9-zoXEL_QMsGJ1ZkNr61VHqXRCFCR8o6_UHO7vZxRtV-ZL=w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 5, 136[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2015110518242454766331@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart776061663086_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0B5gDg1LjtWeN1uBg--.13914S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxGFy3uw17ZFyxGF13AF1kKrg_yoW5CrWDpa 98uw1fGa4kt3WkCw4kAw18Zr1akr9aqa1DZF18G348Aa15Ga4kJr4Ykw15ZFyUGr4rtFn0 vw45tryDXr4vvaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU9Kb7Iv0xC_tr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW0oVCq3wA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_GcCE3s1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG6xAIxVCF xsxG0wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFV Cjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAY jxAxZF0Ex2IqxwCY02Avz4vE14v_Gw1l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7 v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF 1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIx AIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0D MIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4 xI67k04243AbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU2SdyUUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: p2kr3zplqox0w6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/9Ws2jnhOVTSwaFraG57gPqnV7_I>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:23:59 -0000

Dear Ulrich,
Thanks for the hardwork for taking meeting minutes. However, I feel that two points may be missed.
1. We have hum for adopting informational drafts in WG charter, but to the particular two drafts of verification signedcode and nv document, the WG seems having no clear cosensus on adopting them. Although it showed up in the milestone slide.
2. I recalled my memory that several people have comments on nv draft and it seems not be fully supported. Minutes does not include these records.

I'll try to confirm by listening to the recordings again. 

Regards,


Linlin Zhou
 
From: Ulrich Wisser
Date: 2015-11-05 17:09
To: EppExt
Subject: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
Please find my minutes below.
Feedback is welcome!
/Ulrich


EPPEXT meeting at IETF94 Yokohama 2015-11-05 15:20-17:20

Scott Hollenbeck and Ning Kong as interim chair
Both chairs Jim Galvin and Antoin Verschueren in remote participation

draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay
draft-eppext-tmch-smd
  Both are through last call and AD Barry Leiba is currently reviewing, response expected in the coming weeks.


draft-ietf-epppext-launchphase
  Jim Gould updated the document and thinks it is ready for last call.
  shepherd Ulrich Wisser

draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-func-spec-00
  shepherd Ulrich Wisser

draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap-02
draft-gould-idn-table-02
draft-wilcox-cira-idn-eppext-00
  James Gould speaks on these drafts. idnmap needs even idntables as to specify possible table name values.
  Several of the documents are expired. Renewal is requested or will be directly after the meeting.
  Documents will become milestones in the new charter.
  wilcox will be retracted or moved to epp-registry.

Jim Galvin presents a list of documents currently in work and will be milestones 
for the new charter.

draft-gould-allocation-token
  James Goulds speaks on the reasoning behind the extensions.
  Opposition to use AuthInfo for this purpose

draft-gould-change-poll
  James Gould speaks on the reasoning of the document.
  Clients get updates on changes to objects through the poll queue.
  
draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping
  James Gould presents on the reasoning behind the draft.
  Comments from the room about the question of standards track or informational

draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-mapping
draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-ext
  Ning Kong presents
  Discussions about need for RDAP extension 
  Registrar object suggested with support in the room

draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode
draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping
  James Gould presents 
  IPR disclosure

Discussion about adoption of informational documents
  Hum only for no objection

Discussion about documents to include in working group
  - not draft from Alexander Mayerhofer
  - Jim proposes to divide docs in groups for the milestones
  - opposition and support for nv-mapping document
  - Hum, no objections to milestones
  - charter presentation and discussions
  - Several submissions to not broaden the scope of the group to all things ICANN

-- 
Ulrich Wisser
ulrich@wisser.se