Regext Status PagesRegistration 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
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.