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
