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