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

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
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 57A8E1A037A for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:44:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 c4XjCig0jvrT for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-f100.google.com (mail-oi0-f100.google.com [209.85.218.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A7991A0149 for <EppExt@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oigi82 with SMTP id i82so6084522oig.0 for <EppExt@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:44:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=S2LP9Y6Secerw1e4uzl/+V4MDhUhfSNRzyEjsqK6wC0=; b=LXlbUE/LSdp9mPcP4kEsww5QZB4bU64uuIgB7v/qC49XmzprzGx8gCvU4JZKu7SPfN hrUI1sGOaHLRKsYhTGqS0LeK2b7fuNv5lUCByhurFQd5kyoLlcz05hfCcjgYBInvC3gx TrOTVt36O1L4O9AXiymEfvz4bNo5v/1m+DL1c/sCLXYspXJ9FozCIMGnME6E7Do7jAK4 uvHArF3io7PDBR55dOjvZ/mfQY4I1KZRgo0hV+TMt8e1BGPQHTKa/aKZEFHqhyIgvvGs 5ZKnZ7b3ct0jo6Xg2RVxuKICIJyF9ifMe90b4/gBrCP2655J6fOtFspM7I6CEZV5i5l6 3U2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvW5gv4AkhyHdELCn4Tjx9W+1itwjqX9/3BtRp7v55KlyhHIcaZ8+0dpyUrcAP5GH04xxd5KEisaP6YG0885tEVEZJ2Q==
X-Received: by 10.140.232.70 with SMTP id d67mr10473410qhc.62.1446756275876; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id y62sm948279qka.11.2015.11.05.12.44.35 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:44:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA5KiZu6004912 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:44:35 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:44:34 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
Thread-Index: AQHRF6m9eK/y8o0l60m7mZABbgQMIp6N3xmAgAADFwCAABCwAP//81su
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:44:34 +0000
Message-ID: <2BD325B9-FC16-45F9-AE5B-4A11E1404161@verisign.com>
References: <CAJ9-zoXEL_QMsGJ1ZkNr61VHqXRCFCR8o6_UHO7vZxRtV-ZL=w@mail.gmail.com> <0101FBC0-248F-4560-9364-F023B901A959@zdns.cn> <38638B99-20DF-40B3-B431-36ECFE27485F@sidn.nl> <2015110519525639913345@teleinfo.cn> <CDF93078-FA84-48EB-8EC0-DAE733681C6E@sidn.nl> <77db8b89.aea.150d83acd38.Coremail.zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> <425852A8-E258-4660-BB6D-6D78A2CD1D27@verisign.com>, <CC7C221E-729E-4351-BB72-009F3174B74F@antoin.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CC7C221E-729E-4351-BB72-009F3174B74F@antoin.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/ulcbHFz9JuvXGPD7GQblVpONKp4>
Cc: eppext <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 20:44:49 -0000

Antoin,

Thank you for the information and the feedback.  

With your suggestion to switch verification to validation, verification is the common term used currently for this activity.  We actually use the term validation when the registry validates the signature of the VSP so not to confuse the two actions.

Thanks,

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl> wrote:
> 
> As always, adoption of documents is not done in the meeting, but decisions are always taken on the mailinglist.
> Hums during the meeting is an indication for the chairs of the direction the working group wants to go.
> To my recollection, we had 2 hums during the meeting:
> 
> The first hum was on the general question if the working group wanted to work on Informational documents in general as the proposed charter states that informational RFC’s for EPP extensions can follow the Expert review path. The hum indicated strong consensus that we would not exclude working on informational documents so we will not exclude that in our proposed charter.
> 
> The second hum was if the working group agreed to divide the upcoming work into groups to set clear deadlines for our milestones as we cannot prioritize every document with our small working group with limited resources.
> 
> As specific for the nv draft, we didn’t make a final decision yet, but we would send the proposed list of milestones to the mailinglist, with the inclusion of the nv draft in group 1, and ask the mailinglist for approval of the milestones. Not everyone had read the nv draft yet, so one outcome could still be that the nv draft will not be in our milestones if there is objection on the mailinglist.
> All the documents in our milestones will be working group documents off course.
> When it is decided that the nv draft will not become a working group document, one can still request review from the working group members as an example for the verification framework.
> 
> Advise from me: I would suggest to the authors of the verification framework to replace the word "verification" with "validation" as that captures the process more then verification. Validation was also used for ENUM to verify the correctness of phone numbers and it’s owners, so there might be some good guidance in the ENUM documentation.
> 
> - --
> Antoin Verschuren
> 
> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
> M: +31 6 37682392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Op 5 nov. 2015, om 16:30 heeft Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> I recall a vote around inclusion of informational drafts in general but I don’t remember a vote around inclusion of the nv draft itself.  It would be interesting to here from others on the list whether they support or don’t support inclusion of the nv draft based on what was discussed at the meeting and what has been discussed on this thread thus far.  I obviously feel that it is an important draft that deserves adoption by the working group.
>> —
>> 
>> JG
>> 
>> 
>> <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png>
>> 
>> James Gould
>> Distinguished Engineer
>> jgould@Verisign.com
>> 
>> 703-948-3271
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> 
>> http://VerisignInc.com
>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear WG,
>>> 
>>>> I see your point. I am a horrible jabber scribe….I missed that remark by Jim Galvin completely.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> @Chairs: Can you make a clear statement on the list to either confirm or decline my interpretation about the verification drafts being adopted or not.
>>> Same question to chairs. Could you please confirm on the mailing list again whether nv draft is included in WG document?
>>> I recalled my memory that several people have comments to express concerns on nv draft and it seems not be fully supported to be adopted. But it appeared in the milestone. It confused me a lot. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 05 Nov 2015, at 20:52, xiejiagui@teleinfo.cnwrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Rik,
>>>>> Let me post the messages from the Jabber:
>>>>> <Catch.jpg>
>>>>> <CatchF973.jpg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jim Galvin(JimG?) has confirmed  this .
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We do think it's useful to discuss this draft in the WG, and any comments about this draft are welcome.
>>> Regards,
>>> Linlin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EppExt mailing list
>>> EppExt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
>> EppExt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
> 
>