[regext] draft minutes from IETF98 meetings
"James Galvin" <galvin@elistx.com> Fri, 07 April 2017 13:27 UTC
Return-Path: <galvin@elistx.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE1A129484 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=elistx-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 db4ogXrM5ERF for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (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 7EC02129473 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p22so62464965qka.3 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 06:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=elistx-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NNXaREdJjFLF1vrCDqPniqR0iMBmKmi1/kluKfrZq2Y=; b=rKhmw018f3QESVhSwLsbU5iPCD0OROIFGmtav9QTJ0z1fC7WWq0t7LlJ3Pq8UXLMrU olCBxSr+JKEw5xsZjdysj22KSKmX0bo8DQdm5LKLu4zZbzrt1B2ApOc42nwZDokWJKT2 1QjOFM1CUvaaow05ZqRae1l09MgEWjNZWEyMOKIw8tIDldv6NDJdUXHtFBWRyGFH+nyh hIdCxluVbitrJoyfp3BncUlCJIc6PT3CAVRm33RT8dzUDI+DVNs9pyNoz/OYO/sW6xbz cUBJxVuNKsCOevrYi8DXwxFWxccHA3Amaw5sqxn+huAXOWQnLPQtJsignf3Hk5XvglaR /TTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NNXaREdJjFLF1vrCDqPniqR0iMBmKmi1/kluKfrZq2Y=; b=uChC2foN9+efqdEmZz1LG+efBfu5KnMpZcjRZkP/G3OvCCK+HOB7v6DnWnbUYClHbG qJQe4nOz88dVJB90BMHFdNpxYsufHWy1KwOtrF/POsiXKlVRW03VtOUr3pHt8NbCnUJ9 aM8Kq8pEnj/99FV09IZM/QDQTa+Pu/9qQXvp4zDx5W9vVTDxFeLTD+yRkc0grEMJK+/J ycOvNXR3HzsEvm/EoVpsdmz1l/wiFGByjbeLyt4MApQkd5kNI8JCiQO5hfJ59iXEPneV ITfsi8nhvd4dMCfKuUh7x/2QGsGpUgtx/fV2phc4/SdCs315olrb+mRLZYngIEw5sAQ7 EUUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H20FS2WvA6hdeN1LhLgTHT+l4d6LyI9HAjq207QuzyuaRb6VLU6dUDxoKY5inNtbw==
X-Received: by 10.55.133.193 with SMTP id h184mr41928981qkd.205.1491571626113; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 06:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.4] ([2601:154:c201:51d0:b505:5ed5:7ac4:f615]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v4sm3029779qtg.0.2017.04.07.06.27.04 for <regext@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Apr 2017 06:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 09:27:22 -0400
Message-ID: <6A2D26EA-E0D3-4415-BB7D-61DDE44FA745@elistx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/eiS2dW92MkTjoOTuU5GoVq42f24>
Subject: [regext] draft minutes from IETF98 meetings
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 13:27:10 -0000
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.
- Re: [regext] draft minutes from IETF98 meetings James Galvin
- [regext] draft minutes from IETF98 meetings James Galvin