Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

The minutes have been uploaded to the proceedings.

If there are any corrections please make that known and I will upload a 
revised version.

Thanks for hosting this meeting!

Jim

On 23 Aug 2017, at 16:52, Roger D Carney wrote:

> Good Afternoon,
>
> We held an interim meeting this morning and discussed the current Fee 
> draft document (draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-06) and the Validate draft 
> document (draft-ietf-regext-validate-02).
>
> In attendance was Jody Kolker, Antoin Verschuren, Alex Mayrhofer, 
> James Galvin, Dean Farwell, Andreas Huber and Roger Carney.
>
> Agenda:
>
>   1.  Fee
>      *   Confirm Edits (scheme, section 3.8 and reference)
>      *   Discuss "Quiet Period": section 3.8 paragraph 5
>      *   Discuss WG Last Call
>   2.  Validate
>      *   Re-introduce
>      *   Comments/Questions
>   3.  TLD Phase Mapping
>
> We started the meeting by confirming that the current revision of the 
> document (v6) addressed all currently known issues.
>
> Jim Galvin mentioned that we may need to resolve TLD phase detection 
> to make it easier for this draft to move forward as detection (at 
> least in simple form) was removed in the last draft. We spent a few 
> minutes on this and recalled some of the reasons given for removal, 
> e.g. complexity and not a true fit for this draft. We discussed the 
> idea of pulling this into the proposed Registry Mapping draft. We also 
> discussed if the authors were opposed to detection being in the Fee 
> draft and I confirmed that I was not completely against including but 
> I do believe the reasons everyone provided for not including makes 
> sense and that it seems more appropriate in the Registry Mapping 
> draft.
>
> We spent a good amount of time, roughly 35 minutes focused on section 
> 3.8 describing Phase/Subphase. Alex mentioned that 3.8 does not 
> clearly address the scenario of a server not supporting 
> phase/subphase. Alex will provide some language and we will work into 
> the next draft. Discussion continued on the "comfort" idea of phase 
> detection: "Should we allow servers to provide responses with multiple 
> phases/subphases in the same response?" We generally agreed that the 
> added complexity and cost associated with this did not outweigh the 
> possible benefits and that we would stay with the v6 language around 
> this (if client does not supply and only one exists return the one and 
> if multiple exist return error).
>
> No one on the call raised any concerns with the "Quiet Period" in 
> section 3.8 paragraph 5. Please review and express any concerns.
>
> The Chairs did indicate that once we get general agreement on the list 
> for the Fee draft we can move this draft to WG last call. At this 
> point I believe we are in a good state with v6 plus the addition of 
> Alex's suggested text on servers that may not have phase support. 
> Please respond to the list if you agree or disagree.
>
> We moved the discussion onto Validate and Jody provided an overview of 
> the problem space and the proposed solution. There was a general 
> agreement that this proposal sounds good and seems like a logical 
> business issue to resolve. There was some discussion on the possible 
> need to be able to refine this "validate" down to the exact domain 
> name. The draft does allow for this though it was not in the original 
> goals. Jim and Antoin talked about this whole "validate" concept 
> possibly being larger and may need to examined in totality (e.g. with 
> allocation token and verification code). Do they belong together or 
> stay separate, should there be a "higher" framework that pulls 
> together the idea of validation/verification?
>
> If anyone has any additional thoughts on these topics or new topics 
> for these documents please let us know.
>
> Again, thanks to all that were able to participate this morning, it 
> was a very productive meeting.
>
>
> Thanks
> Roger

> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext