Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal

[Antoin Verschuren]

Hi Roger,

Since we had no objections, I’m about to issue this interim meeting request.
2 small administration questions:
-How long will the meeting last (estimate, I have put 1 hour for now).
-Could you or expected attendees provide a bulleted list of issues you would 
like to address or talk about?
 ("Discuss the most current revision of the Fee draft” for now, but that might 
be hard to summarize :-))

And for the WG:
To give the chairs and organizer a sense of participation, since this will be 
our first interim meeting, who on this mailinglist is thinking of joining this 
session?

Regards,

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392






Op 24 jun. 2017, om 18:05 heeft Roger D Carney  het 
volgende geschreven:

> Good Afternoon,
> 
> The latest revision, 05, of the fee draft was just posted.
> 
> I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting to discuss the most 
> current revision of the Fee draft, draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05. This latest 
> draft should account for all comments to this point.
> 
> The meeting will be held Tuesday July 11th, 2017 at 13:00 UTC. We will 
> utilize Zoom as the conferencing tool, please use this link to connect to the 
> meeting.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Roger
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: James Galvin [mailto:gal...@elistx.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 8:19 AM
> To: Jody Kolker 
> Cc: Roger D Carney ; Registration Protocols Extensions 
> 
> Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal
> 
> Yes, please, let’s move forward with scheduling a meeting to discuss the fee 
> document on 11 July.
> 
> Please take the lead.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> On 21 Jun 2017, at 11:18, Jody Kolker wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Jim/Antion/Adam,
> >
> > I fully support having virtual meetings between full IETF meetings.  I
> > think it would help to move documents along faster.  Roger and I were
> > discussing having a meeting for the fee document on July 11th.  Will
> > we be able to have an approved meeting on that day?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jody Kolker
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > FromR: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James
> > Galvin
> > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 12:55 PM
> > To: Roger D Carney 
> > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions 
> > Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16 Jun 2017, at 12:40, Roger D Carney wrote:
> >
> >> Good Afternoon,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think this is a great idea and I think this process looks
> >> acceptable. I have just one question and one comment.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >> Question: To clarify number 3 below "...chairs will handle
> >> administrative tasks...summary...", I assume the summary will be
> >> provided by the requester to the chairs for correct handling?
> >
> > Yes, that would be our preference.  In fact, to go a step farther in
> > detail, if the interim meetings are “one document” meetings, then the
> > author/editor will prepare for the meeting with a bulleted list of
> > “issues” to discuss.  The summary is most likely just the same
> > bulleted list with a few sentences or paragraphs (as needed) to state
> > the consensus of the meeting regarding the issue.  This summary could
> > be posted to the list as is, as well as being used as the Secretariat
> > summary.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Comment: As for "...as a replacement for the second WG meetings at
> >> IETF meetings...", I would like to see these interim meetings as an
> >> addition to and not a replacement. I think the F2F working sessions
> >> that we had at IETF-98 were very productive and we should try to keep
> >> doing.
> >
> > Thanks for this.  We won’t have this option in Prague unfortunately
> > (the Chairs had timing conflicts this time) but I’m interested in
> > other points of view for the future.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James
> >> Galvin
> >> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:41 AM
> >> To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
> >> Subject: [regext] interim meetings proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In addition to updating our milestones, a few folks have asked us
> >> privately for interim meetings to help move along our documents.  The
> >> Chairs have followed up with our Area Director and in this message we
> >> have a proposal for interim meetings for the working group to
> >> consider.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For reference the IETF has some guidance on interim meetings located
> >>
> >> here:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is what we propose.  Please review and comment on the list by
> >> Friday, 23 June 2017.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Any author/editor from a document on our milestone list can
> >> request an interim meeting.  As long as there is no objection from
> >> the working group the meeting can proceed.  

Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal

[Thomas Corte]

Hello,

On 2017-06-27 10:27, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

> And for the WG:
> To give the chairs and organizer a sense of participation, since this
> will be our first interim meeting, who on this mailinglist is thinking
> of joining this session?

I'm going to join the session (assuming that I can get over my concerns
regarding the zoom software it seems to require).

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9   Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund   E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com
Germany

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

Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal

[Jody Kolker]

I will be joining the session.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker


-Original Message-
From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Corte
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:20 AM
To: regext@ietf.org
Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com
Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal

Hello,

On 2017-06-27 10:27, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

> And for the WG:
> To give the chairs and organizer a sense of participation, since this 
> will be our first interim meeting, who on this mailinglist is thinking 
> of joining this session?

I'm going to join the session (assuming that I can get over my concerns 
regarding the zoom software it seems to require).

Best regards,

Thomas

--
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES(r) is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9   Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund   E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com
Germany

___
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

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt

[Gould, James]

Roger,

Never say the “last revision” ☺.  Below is my feedback to the 04 draft:


1.   Nit – Tag braces need to be fixed in “domain > command when no 
 extension to define a new Fee 
Check Command, as defined in option #2 in the regext list 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/2nZMuj9miTaEefyxeIgDnLKe9Rs/?qid=816ff935b150313c729350d5711051b1)
 message.  The last message on the thread message 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/PV2lvVEZQEJKjhRhjT_2aPRVREA/?qid=ba41c1ce0656e3c9722d41f837d01b94)
 between Thomas Corte and I seemed to indicate that option #2 would meet the 
needs; although Thomas could weigh in on whether he agrees.  To meet option #2, 
the first sentence of section 5.1.1 would read:

b.   “This extension defines a new command called the Fee Check Command 
that defines additional elements for the EPP  command to provide fee 
information along with the availability information of the EPP  command.”

   i.   
Separating the fee check command as a sibling and not a child of the 
availability check, removes extending a fee check command automatically by 
availability check extensions, which allows us to include the needed fee check 
features without running the risk of creating a “do everything” check command 
down the line.

c.   Add a short description for the  command child element 
with a link to section 3.3 “Validity Periods”

d.   I recommend describing the , , , and 
 response elements either directly with the element or via a 
reference to somewhere else within the draft.

e.You need to support the “lang” attribute for the  to be 
consistent with the other EPP RFCs.  Maybe it would be best to describe the 
 as a subsection of section 3 “Extension Elements” with a 
description of support for the “lang” attribute, and then reference that 
section when including the  in other places of the draft.

3.   Section 5.2.2 “EPP  Command”, section 5.2.3 “EPP  
Command”, section 5.2.4 “EPP  Command”, and section 5.2.5 “EPP 
 Command”

a.I would add a short description with appropriate references to other 
sections with a full description for each of the command and response child 
elements.

--

JG

[id:image001.png@01D2EB5E.232EF9A0]



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com



703-948-3271

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190



Verisign.com


From: regext  on behalf of Roger Carney 

Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:57 AM
To: "regext@ietf.org" 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt

Good Afternoon,

Thanks for the review James, very much appreciated. I will look to incorporate 
these as much as I can into the next revision (maybe the last revision ☺).


Thanks
Roger


From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 1:27 PM
To: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt


Roger,



Thanks for posting the updated draft, it’s getting very close.  Below is my 
feedback to the latest version (04):



1.   Section 3.1 “Client Commands”

a.   The list of commands needs to be updated to include the “custom” 
command with the “customName” attribute.  The Change Poll Extension 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-01#page-4 ) includes 
an example of the use of the “custom” command / operation along with an 
optional “customName” / “op” attribute to define the concrete name of the 
custom command.  I don’t believe there is the need to support a sub-command, 
where the use of a sub-command may be useful in differentiating one of the 
transfer operations (“request”, “approve”, “cancel”, “reject”); although the 
only billable transfer operations is “request”.

2.   Section 4 “Server Handling of Fee Information”

a.   Nit – “>” should be “”

b.   Nit – “”.

c.   Revise “If the currency or total fee provided by the client do not 
agree with the server’s own calculation of the fee for that command, then the 
server MUST reject…” to match the language included in section 5.2.1 “EPP 
 Command” where “The server MUST fail the  command if the 
 provided by the client is less than the server fee”.

3.   Section 5.1.1

a.   Revise the description of the  extension to define a new Fee 
Check Command, as defined in option #2 in the regext list 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/2nZMuj9miTaEefyxeIgDnLKe9Rs/?qid=816ff935b150313c729350d5711051b1)
 message.  The last message on the thread message 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/PV2lvVEZQEJKjhRhjT_2aPRVREA/?qid=ba41c1ce0656e3c9722d41f837d01b94)
 between Thomas Corte and I seemed to indicate that option #2 would meet the 
needs; although Thomas could weigh in on whether he agrees.  To meet option #2, 
the first sentence of section 5.1.1 would read:

  

Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

I'll attend.



Scott



From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:28 AM
To: Roger D Carney 
Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal



Hi Roger,



Since we had no objections, I'm about to issue this interim meeting request.

2 small administration questions:

-How long will the meeting last (estimate, I have put 1 hour for now).

-Could you or expected attendees provide a bulleted list of issues you would 
like to address or talk about?

 ("Discuss the most current revision of the Fee draft" for now, but that might 
be hard to summarize :-))



And for the WG:

To give the chairs and organizer a sense of participation, since this will be 
our first interim meeting, who on this mailinglist is thinking of joining this 
session?



Regards,



- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392









Op 24 jun. 2017, om 18:05 heeft Roger D Carney 
mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> het volgende geschreven:





   Good Afternoon,



   The latest revision, 05, of the fee draft was just posted.



   I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting to discuss the most 
current revision of the Fee draft, draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05. This latest 
draft should account for all comments to this point.



   The meeting will be held Tuesday July 11th, 2017 at 13:00 UTC. We will 
utilize Zoom as the conferencing tool, please use this 
link to connect to the meeting.





   Thanks

   Roger





   -Original Message-
   From: James Galvin [mailto:gal...@elistx.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 8:19 AM
   To: Jody Kolker mailto:jkol...@godaddy.com>>
   Cc: Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>>; 
Registration Protocols Extensions mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
   Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal



   Yes, please, let's move forward with scheduling a meeting to discuss the fee 
document on 11 July.



   Please take the lead.



   Jim







   On 21 Jun 2017, at 11:18, Jody Kolker wrote:



   > Thanks Jim/Antion/Adam,

   >

   > I fully support having virtual meetings between full IETF meetings.  I

   > think it would help to move documents along faster.  Roger and I were

   > discussing having a meeting for the fee document on July 11th.  Will

   > we be able to have an approved meeting on that day?

   >

   >

   > Thanks,

   > Jody Kolker

   >

   >

   > -Original Message-

   > FromR: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James

   > Galvin

   > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 12:55 PM

   > To: Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>>

   > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions 
mailto:regext@ietf.org>>

   > Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal

   >

   >

   >

   > On 16 Jun 2017, at 12:40, Roger D Carney wrote:

   >

   >> Good Afternoon,

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >> I think this is a great idea and I think this process looks

   >> acceptable. I have just one question and one comment.

   >

   > Thanks!

   >

   >

   >> Question: To clarify number 3 below "...chairs will handle

   >> administrative tasks...summary...", I assume the summary will be

   >> provided by the requester to the chairs for correct handling?

   >

   > Yes, that would be our preference.  In fact, to go a step farther in

   > detail, if the interim meetings are "one document" meetings, then the

   > author/editor will prepare for the meeting with a bulleted list of

   > "issues" to discuss.  The summary is most likely just the same

   > bulleted list with a few sentences or paragraphs (as needed) to state

   > the consensus of the meeting regarding the issue.  This summary could

   > be posted to the list as is, as well as being used as the Secretariat

   > summary.

   >

   >

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >> Comment: As for "...as a replacement for the second WG meetings at

   >> IETF meetings...", I would like to see these interim meetings as an

   >> addition to and not a replacement. I think the F2F working sessions

   >> that we had at IETF-98 were very productive and we should try to keep

   >> doing.

   >

   > Thanks for this.  We won't have this option in Prague unfortunately

   > (the Chairs had timing conflicts this time) but I'm interested in

   > other points of view for the future.

   >

   > Jim

   >

   >

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >> Thanks

   >>

   >> Roger

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >> -Original Message-

   >> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James

   >> Galvin

   >> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:41 AM

   >> To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
mailto:regext@ietf.org>>

   >> Subject: [regext] interim meetings proposal

   >>

   >>

   >>

   >> In addition to updating our milestones, a few folks have asked us

   >> privately for interim meetings to help move along our documents.

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05.txt

[Thomas Corte]

Hello,

On 2017-06-24 17:50, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions of the 
> IETF.
> 
> Title   : Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible 
> Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
> Authors : Roger Carney
>   Gavin Brown
>   Jothan Frakes
>   Filename: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05.txt

Thanks for this new version.


I noticed one minor issue (carried over from previous versions) that
should be corrected. Section 5.1.1 says

   If "avail" is false then the 
   element MUST contain a  element (as described in
   Section 3.9) and the server MAY eliminate some or all of the
element(s).

However, eliminating *all* of the  elements isn't allowed
by the schema since the "command" element must appear at least once in
"objectCDType":


  



  
  


The "command" element should therefore be defined using minOccurs="0".
Otherwise, a server is forced to include an (empty) dummy command
element to satisfy the schema.

Note that the seemingly obvious change (use an XSD  between
 and ) won't work since there may be situations in
which commands are present (all unavailable with reason, such as "wrong
period") and the overall availability is false.

Best regards,

Thomas Corte

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9   Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund   E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com
Germany

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