Re: [regext] draft minutes from IETF98 meetings

["James Galvin" <[e-mail]>]

With additional spelling correct, changed “Antoine” to “Antoin”, 
the minutes below have been submitted to the proceedings.

Thanks again to Alexander Mayrhofer for preparing the summary.

Antoin and Jim



On 7 Apr 2017, at 9:27, James Galvin wrote:

> Here are the draft minutes from our meetings in IETF98.  Thanks to 
> Alexander Mayrhofer for doing this for us.
>
> Please review and post comments to the list.  We will post them to the 
> proceedings next Friday, 14 April 2017.
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
> ———— Minutes Begin
>
>
> REGEXT @ IETF98
> ===============
>
> ~40 people in the room.
>
> Adam Roach is our incoming AD, and briefly introduces himself. Jim
> Galvin opens the meeting, Antoin Verschuren as the second Co-Chair is
> remote. Jim presents the note well. Alex Mayrhofer doing minutes,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer doing the Jabber scribe.
>
> Jim requests people to review the documents, as quality of the drafts
> depends on that.
>
> Published documents: RFC 8056 (RDAP status mapping) plus RFC 8063 (Key 
> Relay)
>
> Ulrich Wisser is the document Shepherd for Launch Phase, the draft is
> ready for WGLC.
>
> Review of the working session on monday - RDAP:
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Scott Hollenbeck
>
> Scott: Individual submissions created to address functional gaps in 
> RDAP.
>
> RDAP-OpenID: (OpenID Connect + OAuth based authentication for
> RDAP). Might "bake" document a little bit longer before asking for
> consideration as a WG document.
>
> RDAP-Object-Tag: Adds "handle" style object identifiers to RDAP,
> similar to what RIRs are doing.
>
> RDAP-Search-Regex: Uses base64-encoded regex in URL, as regex is not
> URL safe. Was discussed on Monday.  IPR-Disclosure is attached to this
> document.
>
> Jim: Going to register these in the IANA extensions registry?
> Scott: Not yet, maybe once the docs proceed
>
> Some discussion about the interaction of technical standards and 
> policies
>
> EPP Fees Extension
> -------------------
>
> Roger Carney
>
> Great working session on monday, plus a few followup-threads on the
> mailing list.
>
> Availability: Consensus is that a check command without fee extension
> for a "premium" name would return "unavailable"
>
> Kal Feher: Concerned about this availability interpretation, since
> this would indicated a name that was available is now "unavailable".
> Alex: Premium names were "reserved" before migration, so they were
> already "unavailable", on a meta level we should reduce ambigiuity in
> our specifications.
>
> Document is still work-in-progress
>
> Reseller-Extension / Reseller-ID - Jim Gould
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Jim reports on the options - looks for use cases of the "generic
> organization" path - privacy proxy was mentioned in addition to
> resellers.
>
> Scott: Draft on the alternative proposal of "organization" would be
> great. Working with Antoine and others to see to create one.
>
> Ulrich: We don't even have a "registrar", why do we need a "reseller"?
> Jim: "registrar" is stored in the registry in other way, "reseller"
> currently doesn't exist.
>
> Discussion about the "policy" side: Francisco states that the
> "reseller id" is an optional field in the Consistent Labelling &
> Display policy
>
> Niels ten Oever: Privacy Considerations should be applied to this
> document, would be happy to work with Jim on that.
>
> DNSoperator-to-RR protocol - Jaques Latour
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Discussion on monday about the RDAP-discoverability of the API. Plus
> discussion about the CDS record itself.
>
> Need to find a new term for the "actor" that runs the API and has the
> position to update the DS in the registry.
>
> Stephane: What is the connection to RDAP or EPP (for group scope)?
> Jaques explain the connections and the API structure
>
> Jody: Would that allow DS passing when the registrar does not allow 
> DNSSEC?
> Jaques: Either the registrar or the registry could run this.
>
> Matt Pounsett: Provides the technical capabilities, but depends on
> adoption by registrar/registry
>
> Jim Galvin: Expects updates on the last 4 documents.
>
> Draft-gould-regext-dataset - Jim Gould
> --------------------------------------
>
> DSF -> "Data Set File"
>
> Meta-Date/Type in header, plus CSV data in body
>
> Extensible to support other objects and fields
>
> Bulk operations are the prime use case for this.
>
> Alex: Clarification that this is not to be passed within EPP
>
> regext-rdap-domain-availability - Andrew Newton
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Two new query parameters "availabilityCheck=1" / 
> "availabilityInformation=1"
>
> Jim Gould: Believe that RDAP is not the place for this - it is an
> "information" service, not availability
>
> Kal: Concerned about adding the full logic of "availability"
>
> Andy: No need to use the same server for this - specify a different 
> endpoint
>
> Jim: We would be better off to specifically design something suited to
> availability, rather than "adapting"
>
> Andy: What's missing?
>
> Jim: Multiple names, REST (or something even more light weight?)
>
> ??: Another option would be to list "alternatives" when a domain name
> is unavailable
>
> Not asking for adoption as this point in time.
>
> Escrow Documents - Gustavo Lozano
> ---------------------------------
>
> Gustavo explains background of the documents - XML and CSV formats
>
> Jim Galvin: Relation to DSF by Jim?
>
> Jim Gould: Similar approach, but different purposes and data contents.
>
> Discussion around scope of WG - if we would adopt this, we would need
> to update the charter.
>
> Jim: Sense of the room for adopting those?
>
> Most are in favour of adoption, but that will not be executed
>
> Milestones discussion
> ---------------------
>
> First meeting where we had more than 4 "active" documents - 7 this 
> time.
>
> Alex: Concerned that we adopt too many documents and never get them 
> done.
>
> Scott: Consider RFC7942 - not a big fan of adopting and pushing them
> to the back.
>
> Jim: This is also the place of discussions around the IANA extensions.
>
> Three actions:
>
> 1) Escrow documents: Revive them, add an implementation status 
> section.
>
> 2) Revisit the current list of extensions, and consider whether they
> need to be standards track.
>
> 3) Poke individuals to push or not on document progress, maybe
> withdraw documents.
>
> Then prioritize things, extensions / documents which have traction
>
>
> Contact Postal info elements - Jim Gould
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Two posts to list related to update / remove of postal info elements.
>
> Questions about the process - would the proposal update base EPP RFCs?
>
> Scott: Intention of the author of base RFCs was that "chg" means 
> "replace"!
>
> Jim: Will post this to the list, and then ask other registries for 
> input.
>
> AoB
> ---
>
> Feedback to working sessions: Generally good, Logistics was not
> optimal (room size). AD is positive about 2 slots again next time
> again. Jim: Have meetings closer to each other?
>
> Regiops: Happening in Madrid on May 12 2017.
>
> Meeting adjourns at 14:52.