* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Regext Status Pages

Registration Protocols Extensions (Active WG)
Art Area: Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell | 2016-Mar-04 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-99 regext minutes

Session 2017-07-18 1330-1530: Karlin III - Audio stream - regext chatroom

Minutes

minutes-99-regext-00 minutes



          REGEXT meeting minutes IETF 99
          ==============================
          
          Prague, Czech Republic, 2017-07-18
          
          Jim Galvin & Antoin open the meeting, show note-well document.
          
          Document Status
          ===============
          
          Launch Phase - submitted to IESG for publication - Review on Adam's side
          is in progress.
          There's a relation to the fee document that we might need to fix.
          
          Fee Extension
          =============
          
          Was topic of the Interim Meeting. Last big open issue is the relation
          between fees and launch phases.
          Options regarding the way forward were outlined by Jody on the mailing
          list (5 options) -
          subsequent discussion what an "active" phase is.
          
          Discussion:
          
          Alex: Needs to work in registries without launch phase extension
          Jim: That seems to be the case
          
          Quiet periods - will responses say "unavailable"?
          Jim Gould: Maybe
          
          Chrystoph: Have seen both (available / unavailable) - but we cannot
          force by means of that extension
          Thinks it should be "available", but have some "reason"..
          
          Ulrich: We should use the "original behavior" or the "normal" check
          command.
          
          Jim Gould: No problem with 3.8, as long as we define what "multiple
          active phases" means.
          
          Roger: If it doesn't fit into the launch phase document, where do we
          put it?
          
          "List Phases" can be a more generic use case as well -
          eg. Pre-Registration..
          
          Conclusion:
          
          Roger is going to post an updated document with the outcome from the
          intermediate,
          and roger will also post a separate message on the list regarding the
          "discovery" of phases,
          based on the discussion here.
          
          "Organization" draft
          ====================
          
          Rather than "reseller", this specifies an "organization" object.
          
          Draft name has been adapted as well. The "role" does also contain an ID
          that eg. can be used to reflect the IANA ID.
          
          A registry for "roles" is specified.
          
          Only 7 elements are required - considered feedback that "why is registrar
          less important than reseller"
          
          Jim Galvin: Any open issues with the document?
          Authors: Change reflects working group requests, so should be a WG
          discussion - wanna move forward.
          
          Jim Gould: Co-Author, we need implementation experience.
          
          Implementations? Verisign... (have implemented reseller and updated the
          rtk to support organization)
          CORE - intends to implement the extension once its finalized.
          
          Scott: Suggestion to add "implementation status" section to draft.
          
          Historical RDAP
          ===============
          
          draft-ellacott-historical-rdap
          
          used for eg. Transfer recipients, Disputants, Law enforcement, researchers
          
          Introduces a new "history" object class - contains "content" and
          "applicableFrom" "applicableTo" (half-open)
          
          IP-addresses: Can be split/aggregated - history returns all intersecting
          ranges (for simplicity)
          
          Privacy: Exclude sensitive fields, or authentication
          
          Jim: Please continue on mailing list, once you are ready for adoption
          we'll consider that step
          
          Milestone Status
          ================
          
          * draft-ietf-regext-change-poll:
          
          Jim Gould:  Change authorship (Kal is new), added implementation status
          section
          (Verisign and Neustar), generic extension, encourage registries to
          consider it.
          Use case could eg. be purging of unused objects.
          Roger: useful, registries please implement this.
          
          Document is stable, would like to see reviews.
          
          * draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token:
          
          Jim Gould: Verisign / Neustar cooperation, simple draft. Authorship change
          (Kal),
          implementation status added (Neustar ahead). Allow for "allocation
          tokens" to
          be used (eg. after an auction). Most complex thing is the definition of
          the token format
          (up to implementors - can be anything).
          
          * draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rr-protocol
          
          Matt Pounsett: Thought we were done, but there's a bit more work to do.
          Acceptance of DNS operators in the ecosystem. Q: Who can accept the
          DNSSEC key
          material? Only registrars? Contract text might allow registries to do
          that as well?
          Definitive comments on that are appreciated.
          
          Record in the zone to add an API entry point? Currently under
          consideration - SRV looks promising
          4 known implementations - CIRA, Gandi, APNIC, Fred (CZ.NIC) in parallel
          to active scanning
          
          New draft hopefully in a couple of weeks - asking for more comments.
          
          Jim: Concern about who changes which data under certain circumstances.
          Matt: Will discuss that with the community
          Jody: Not comfortable with data being changed without being in the loop.
          
          * bundling-registration
          
          3 Types of bundling specified - experienced in bundling in Chinese IDN.
          Strict / partial / (?) types.
          
          Jim: Document was put on hold waiting for DNS bundling. No proposal was
          made for a WG, so
          we are taking it "off hold" - at the end of milestone list. Want to
          re-order it towards top?
          
          Ning: We think the draft is mature, can we move forward?
          
          Alex: Important for other registries? Is also used in ".shinshin"
          registry.
          Jim: Implementation status section?
          
          Jim Galvin: Propose to take that one to the mailing list.
          
          * validate
          
          Only 7 pages - Status: It's done, sits waiting to be wrapped up?
          
          RDAP-Object-Tag
          ===============
          
          draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag
          
          In Chicago this document was pushed back, and we should rather trim
          our milestones.
          this opinion by AD stays the same, has to stay pending until we close
          up other
          items.
          
          Scott - will see pilot implementations in gTLDs in the next few months.
          gTLD registries should consider using that "tagging" draft during
          a pilot.
          
          Scott will update implementation status information based on feedback.
          
          Interim Meetings
          ================
          
          Jim Galvin: Meeting on fee extension was very successful, continues the
          success of "concentrated work" we started in Chicago.
          In future, we can use Meetecho (provided by the IETF)
          
          Seems a good way forward to close a document.
          Roger: Face to face or interim allows for more in-depth discussion.
          Jim: Leaving out the issue of whether or not holding a second next time.
          
          AOB
          ===
          
          Scott: regex search document was updated to allow "plain text" regext
          parameters
          Interest in moving forward? One hand - Jim suggests bringing it up to
          the list
          
          Dimitry Belavsky: If anyone is interested in EAI, please contact me.
          
          Registrar.IT: json document for RDAP... to improve interoperability,
          introduces self-descriptive format.
          currently not way to
          
          Andy: JCR / JSON Schema...
          
          Scott: Interesting that two people come up independently with that..
          
          Jim Galvin: Will consider this for the next meeting
          
          Chrystof: Notices big differences with implementations of fee extensions.
          
          Discussion about implementation choices - complexities - "techops"
          in gTLD world discusses this
          (is a list from the registrars stakeholder group)
          
          Jody will send out a pointer to the regext list.
          
          Jim Gould: Escrow files and Bulk format files - the latter were not
          brough forward, are those in/out of scope?
          Jim Galvin: Will discuss with AD where these documents fit (though this
          group is currently full in terms of doc queue)
          Andy Newton: I think this is the right place for these.
          
          AD prefers adding them here if we can get enough interest, rather than
          AD sponsored.
          
          tmch technical interfaces: Document was dropped because the IDN matching
          rules were unacceptable..
          Francisco: thinks that issues have been solved between Gustavo and Patrik
          Antoin: Was also rejected because it describes an ICANN process, and
          should hance be informational.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/regext/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -