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

"Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> Thu, 05 November 2015 13:38 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 46DE61B2C2D for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:38:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.612
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 51YPVXNP4Izd for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518121B2C25 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ajax-webmail-ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:38:19 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
X-Originating-IP: [218.241.102.150]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:38:19 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: "Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version XT3.0.5b dev build 20150108(58896.7041) Copyright (c) 2002-2015 www.mailtech.cn cnnic
In-Reply-To: <C0004164-F535-4AB4-A9E6-A534BCAD266D@verisign.com>
References: <CAJ9-zoXEL_QMsGJ1ZkNr61VHqXRCFCR8o6_UHO7vZxRtV-ZL=w@mail.gmail.com> <2015110518242454766331@cnnic.cn> <C0004164-F535-4AB4-A9E6-A534BCAD266D@verisign.com>
X-SendMailWithSms: false
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <17335b97.ad9.150d7de92ea.Coremail.zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0BpcDjLWztW_cRyBg--.1818W
X-CM-SenderInfo: p2kr3zplqox0w6fq0xffof0/1tbiAQAEBiVCNzp9qAABs9
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/kKQ_1HmJHQd9w3uAoEgriRUyC6s>
Cc: Ulrich Wisser <ulrich@wisser.se>, "eppext@ietf.org" <EppExt@ietf.org>
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 13:38:29 -0000

Dear James,
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> The hum’s where associated with the informational drafts, which does not include the verificationcode draft since it is defined as standards track.  There was no expressed issue with the WG adopting the verificationcode draft.  It was agreed that informational track drafts can be brought into the WG.  

Sorry, my mistake. Verificationcode draft is standards track. So we have not reached consensus on the nv draft adoption.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> There was not clear consensus on the nv draft since it was defined as informational and there was the question of applicability for the WG.  The verificationcode draft defines a standard framework for applying local verification policies where the nv draft defines a concrete use case for China.  Based on the number of registrars and registries that will need to address the verification regulations in China and potentially in other countries, I believe that it’s important for the WG to address the standards track verificationcode draft as well as the concrete use case for China with the nv draft.  

I feel that verificationcode draft is more like a general method which could be used for real name verification or anything else verification. But the local verification policies in China is really somthing complex that the nv draft may not be the best choice. Many Chinese registrars and registries already implemented some other interface based on HTTP. If WG indeed wants some standards to address this scenario over EPP, I am skepticle on whether EPP is appropriate to transfer large image files as I said in the Jabber room.

Regards,
Linlin