* 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 —  

IETF-100 regext minutes

Session 2017-11-13 1330-1530: Olivia - Audio stream - regext chatroom


minutes-100-regext-00 minutes

          Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT)
          IETF 100, Singapore, Meeting minutes
          Co-chairs: Jim Galvin, Antoin Verschuren
          Mailinglist: regext@ietf.org
          Existing Documents
          Launch Phase is in publication requested - all good so far.
          Fee Extension (Roger Carney)
          Couple of open questions from implementation - next version (09) is
          ready to be published (adds just one item to the schema).  Two
          1) "cd:avail" flag if only a partial set is returned - currently
          returning 0 (unless full set is given).  Jim Gould argues for the
          opposite (should be 1 even in case of partial responses) - will bring
          it to the list.
          2) classification on the command vs. object level - should be at the
          object level (proposal to move it up to the object level) - Roger
          agrees, if someone disagrees Roger will post the two last remaining
          items to the list, then roll -09 and then ask for WGLC
          -02 was posted in August. Only a handful of comments, and currently
           looking for implementors.
          Jim Gould: Option to use it for existing contacts, rather than
          supplying "new" contacts?
          Roger: Mainly intended for domain creates
          Registry Mapping (Roger Carney)
          Will talk more about it later in the Working Session
          Milestone Review
          Back in Chicago, got pushback on new documents from AD - should clean
          up document queue, 3-5 documents are going to go to IESG before end of
          year or latest Q1 2018. Discussion goal is to identify whether
          documents are ready from the WG perspective.
          3-5 people required during WGLC to indicate concensus - can be hard to
          reach "non-authors" because of group size.
          - Change Poll: Chairs think it is ready, Jacques said they intended
          to implement
          Jim: Implementation from Neustar and Verisign. Think it is ready for
          WGLC - Jim will make a request on the list. Nobody objects against
          that plan.
          - Allocation Token: same.
          - dnsoperator-to-rrr: Needs more review, is not there yet for WGLC.
          Jim Gould: Did a recent review, and has a concern about lack of
          addressing of the trust relationship between dns operator and other
          Jim Galvin (as individual): appreciates the 2 implementation efforts
          (CIRA and CZ.NIC), however it's difficult for gTLDs to support this
          for policy reasons. (Is defined out of scope in document).
          Roger: As Registrar, changing data outside of the registry/registrar
          loop is problematic for registrars.  Communication "along the chain"
          needs to be figured out. Currently no intention to implement this.
          Jim (as Chair) notes the Milestone for this document is coming up soon
          - heads up to document authors.
          - bundling-registration: Defines just one way / use-case of bundling,
          but does not cover all options.  Suggestion from the Chairs is to make
          it informational, and move it forward that way.
          Jiankang Yao: We have significant implementation / operation
          experience in that under .cn.
          Scott: If we go to informational, then add an Implementation Status
          section with the experiences?
          Ning: If there are other bundling mechanisms / use cases, please feed
          back to us and we can add them
          Edmund Chang: Wouldn't that be worthwhile as a standard if it would be
          subject to IDN bundling only?
          Jim: No way to enable/disable individual registrations in a bundle,
          and DNSSEC would need to be dealt with
          - org/org-ext: Antoin: Documents need a thorough review, but also
          implementation analysis / experience report. Suggests the authors push
          for review or more implementation.
          Ning: reseller draft is implemented, org drafts are not implemented
          yet, research ongoing on whether implementation feasible.
          Jim Galvin: Implementations in other contexts?
          Ning: Registrars and .cn
          Roger: Never found a reason to implement this
          Jody: Have no reason to implement this - considers that information
          that is of no concern to the registry. ICANN option to include it is
          considered an overkill.
          Jim Galvin: Falls into same category as the dnsoperator-to-rrr and
          bundling - whether that's a standards track document or informational
          Scott: Since when is implementation required for standards track?
          Jim Galvin: Wide applicability is, not necessarily implementation,
          Andrew Newton: Don't like the concept "i'm not going to do that" ->
          "we won't standardize it".
          Andrew Sullivan: If this WG is not the work to produce one canonical
          document for a problem, then please point us to where that work is
          Jim: That's what the IANA extension is for - doesn't mean everything
          has to be standards track
          Ning: not sure we should always spend the energy on that adoption
          yes/no discussion or standards track / informational
          RDAP jcr (Andrew Newton)
          Problem: RDAP defines JSON just in prose - no formalism -> difficult
          testing.  Uses JSON content Rules (JCR
          (Mario Loffredo, .it) - Following another approach than JSON
          Scheme... Thinks that JCR is better because fits better to the way
          RFCs are written. Thinks JCR might be less useful for other REST
          services, lacks ways to describe relationships between query and
          responses. Plus, only few implementations for JCR vs JSON Schema.
          Scott: Where would the base JCR document go? This WG is not the right
          place for the base JCR doc - but where is it?
          Jim Galvin: Dispatch?
          (??): Similar to CBOR.
          (??): Really useful, easy to use, i like it.
          Adam Roach (as AD): JCR base to be taken on in this WG?
          Andrew: No, didn't say that.
          Adam: Good- we just need to make sure underlying technology is pushed
          forward before we have apps on top of it here
          RDAP sorting-paging & partial response & reverse search  (Mario Loffredo)
          sorting-paging & partial-response: takes practices from REST services
          to RDAP. New parameters "count", "sortby", "limit/offset", and new
          properties "paging_count", "paging_links". Alternative to offset
          "cursor" - logical pointer to the next page.
          Discussing advantages/disadvantages of offset / cursor based variants.
          Field sets - two options: List of fields vs. named sets of
          fields. Flexibility vs. comfort.
          Reverse search: Registries already provide users with reverse searches
          (eg. domains based on nameservers).
          Q: Should reverse search be based on other entities as well? Should it
          be extended to the other types of searches?
          Andy: Search - before we do anything like this, we need to get the
          OAuth stuff done.  Plus, this is very foundational work, and should be
          standards track work.
          Scott: Please get your plate clean - RDAP is moving into operational
          status, and we'll encounter more similar things which we need to work
          Discussion about registrars requiring lists - comment: We don't want
          lists in EPP.
          Interim Meeting feedback
          First two interim meetings were very productive, last one was zero
          participation (4 or 5 people on the call).
          Andrew: a) BCP about operating servers - sometimes hard to contact the
          operators b) Draft about http vs. https, sometimes people cannot
          operate https
          Stephane: Extend 5731 RFC to allow registration via DNAMEs
          Kim: The only use case was the one presented - not work on this?
          Jim Galvin: Push that to the mailing list?
          Jim: Discussion about broadening the charter to adopt other
          "registration-related" documents, once the document "plate" is clean.
          Before london, several documents should be off our WG, and we can
          adopt more documents.
          Alex: Search is underspecified, would appreciate working together with
          others to get that fixed
          Scott: Was similarly confused when writing the section to capture the
          opinion of the working group (WEIRDS)

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