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

"Gould, James" <> Thu, 05 November 2015 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E2F1B29D2 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:46:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QDaB_Ikj1l92 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8645F1B29B4 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oigi82 with SMTP id i82so5104374oig.0 for <>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=POX26FHccv1nswTB1B52jd6EHA6ZSJTvQlAZCZbVRsM=; b=b2olwB678u/18/WG0TL44r1DhLjBCaTj5MnPj+e7KmK4u72U24vI3sDlxRO8JbeXsp n8YSXtP3y4a8Ny2+UaSxqmkq84XWuTsSVb/Dh6LJtr2nhGzrSO99BL3WnjMvba6fCXwX PoltPW7KZjybKeHc27+EKvCl2Pekds/yGO5lMHw8PqVIcUNNHQgywG4r8QSjcHw4Ifv+ rgCQMdT2gV7UTIXQ+tWbc3ySkyqfKsR9hjsXHaZrLla6yGr+LN3MtqKYiwWORIL2SKqR kHwCag8X+UaSqfeIxHJgH91jTdqTLJHnHB46n5meXU9FpeqxErw0pwiSa8iIYH+oj69r BCLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6VlhuqmH3L/mNWwevODNbaw0K5q6IJGFJ4zIfiB+XFn1R4jI7G0PIfDSgWcd8Eml0Ou7GGYRoSNixxoGESd29AdHAlw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 1mr7252691qkr.25.1446727609715; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id y123sm719030qky.3.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexcas01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA5CkmQM005157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:46:48 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:46:48 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Linlin Zhou <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
Thread-Index: AQHRF6m9eK/y8o0l60m7mZABbgQMIp6NON3PgAB7sYA=
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:46:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_C0004164F5354AB4A9E6A534BCAD266Dverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Ulrich Wisser <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:46:54 -0000


I have a feedback to your points below.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Linlin Zhou <<>> 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.

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

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!

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

  Both are through last call and AD Barry Leiba is currently reviewing, response expected in the coming weeks.

  Jim Gould updated the document and thinks it is ready for last call.
  shepherd Ulrich Wisser

  shepherd Ulrich Wisser

  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.

  James Goulds speaks on the reasoning behind the extensions.
  Opposition to use AuthInfo for this purpose

  James Gould speaks on the reasoning of the document.
  Clients get updates on changes to objects through the poll queue.

  James Gould presents on the reasoning behind the draft.
  Comments from the room about the question of standards track or informational

  Ning Kong presents
  Discussions about need for RDAP extension
  Registrar object suggested with support in the room

  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<>
EppExt mailing list<>