* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Eppext Status Pages

Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (Concluded WG)
Art Area: Francesca Palombini, Murray Kucherawy | 2013-Dec-12 — 2016-Mar-16 

IETF-93 eppext minutes

Session 2015-07-22 1740-1940: Karlin III - eppext chatroom


minutes-93-eppext minute

          Prague, July 22 2015, 17:40 - 19:40
          Antoin Verschuren and Jim Galvin open the meeting.
          Note Well is displayed on screen.
          Existing documents
          IDNmap - has expired because Francisco has been waiting on
          implementation reports. Please send implementation status statements
          to Francisco Obispo
          Scott: Has sent a comment on the document but has not seen an update
          yet.  Will forward note again.
          Launchphase + TMCH document
          Gone to WGLC (until July 31st) - some comments received. Please send
          more comments to list.
          Scott: Process question for the launch phase document. Contains a URI
          pointing to an expired internet draft - is this normative /
          informative? Any process issues?
          Barry: How extensive is the definition that it points to? If just 1-2
          sentences, copy it.  If more extensive, this is going to hold up the
          document. Is it practical to "pull it in", no question whether this is
          normative or information.
          Jim Gould: Reference is extensive, and should not be "pulled in".
          Barry: Will hold up document in the RFC editor queue.
          Jim Galvin: Have to resurrect that expired draft? Could we bring this
          into this group?  (Barry nods.) Will take this to the list and follow
          up with the author of the referenced document.
          Document Shepherd for the TMCH document? Jim explains the process.
          Ning agrees to try, Jim will help on that.
          Keyrelay document - Rik Ribbers
          Problem to be solved: Change DNS operator while keeping the DNSSEC
          chain intact.  The new DNS op has to transfer his key to the old DNS
          op.  Describes the "channel" via registrars / registry
          Did a study about the transfers under .nl: average 23400 transfers per
          month 44% DNSSEC in zone, secure transfers is going up inline with
          that.  Spikes show transfers that are done "insecure" by removing the
          key before.  Process to remove keys and then transfer keeps the DNS
          "clean", but it makes the domain name go insecure.
          - XML structure discussion is closed - was discussion between Rik and
            Jim Gould
          - Had a discussion with the technical registrar board
          TODO: update current implementation to be inline with the document.
          Thinks that document is ready for WGLC.  Interest in a "generic" relay
          concept? Talk to Rik.
          Jim: Generic Relay would be outside for now, not EPP extension level?
          Rik: would be an additional "relay" command, as an EPP extension
          Jim: Thinks that this is ready for WGLC.
          Marcos Sanz: Very good document, can definitely go to WGLC.
          Scott: Second that, ready for WGLC.
          Jim Gould on Jabber: Yes, this is ready. Need to increase the
          deployment of DNSSEC to get traction
          Antoin: Implementations?
          Jaques Latour: Not sure how well this will be taken up by registrars;
          not planned for .CA.
          Jim Gould: Verisign will implement in toolkit.
          Ning: CNNIC will implement.
          Jim: Will make admin steps to start WGLC.
          Proposed new charter
          Was sent to the list, some comments received.
          Jim: Will shorten the intro of charter.  Jim explains regarding the
          milestones.  We will create actual milestones for the document, there
          won't be a "meta-milestone".
          Rik: Suggestion to follow the process of dnsop (at least 5 reviewers
          before we adopt a draft)?
          Jim: Operational issue, not in the charter (Barry agrees) - 5 might
          not be the right number?
          Jim: Do we need the milestones immediately?
          Barry: some time along the process - not the moment the proposed
          charter is being sent.
          Barry: Likely approval would be september 10th, if everything received
          by August 13th (including milestones).
          Candidates for WG docs
          Ning presents the work on the two reseller documents.
          "reseller" document - was proposed as "purveyor", but has been
          renamed.  Received interest during the ROW meeting in Dallas.
          Background - there's another "level" of entities between registrar and
          end user.
          Problems: eg. in WHOIS end users see a "wrong" entity.
          Dimitry: Claims that Reseller is usually "billing contact".
          Drafts creates a specific "reseller" object, including contacts.
          Shows example info responses.  Extends also domain/host/contact to
          include reseller ID and optionally name.
          Reseller mapping creates the "reseller" object - the other document
          extends the current mappings to bind reseller to.
          Was implemented in 2003. Supported in Net::DRI.  Heard that SIDN and
          Nominet experienced similar requirements.
          Asks for WG adoption.
          Marcos: Haven't read the doc. Considered nesting resellers?
          Ning: Yes, contains "parentID".
          Jim Gould: Information included in WHOIS / RDAP?
          Francisco Arias: Would be good to have, because there's a requirement
          in registry/registrar WHOIS.
          Ulrich Wisser: Why the need for an object mapping?  Why not use a
          "normal" contact?
          Jabber: "reseller" is an object that has contacts itself.
          Jim: reseller drafts will be included as part of the proposed new
          charter review to be included in the milestones as working group
          Jim: Reviewing the remaining 8 potential documents for consideration
          as working group documents and included in the charter.
          These documents will proposed with the charter to be included as
          working group documents:
          draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration/ - Jim Gould indicated he may have
          a related proposal.
          draft-brown-epp-fees/ - Ulrich indicated he has use cases not covered
          by this proposal; Roger Carney indicated he may have a related
          draft-gould-idn-table/ - may have some interaction with the LAGER
          working group
          These documents are currently targeted for submission to the
          Extensions Registry:
          Notes from the discussion about the documents listed above:
          Alex: servicemessage was at the same time as some other "messaging"
          related drafts; (some comments from jabber)
          Yoneya: IDN-Table document: Might belong into Lager rather than here.
          Concerned about the relation between the two WGs.
          Various comments from the Jabber [18:35-18:38]
          Roger: Recommends the "fees" extension as a working group document.
          Will post another doc to the list soon.
          Ning: Bundling registrations is also relevant.
          Alex: Second Roger that the fees extension is important.
          Jim: We might have more than one idea regarding bundling.
          Ulrich: None of the fees drafts covers our use cases (together with
          bundling) - maybe we should discuss this.
          Jim: We could consider several strategies - "nod off" clear items
          quickly followed by more detailed work.
          Jim Gould: Suggestion that RDAP mapping doesn't belong to this group.
          Jim: Heard suggestions that there is more coming
          Alex: Process question - how to pregress with regards of which docs
          will become milestones?
          Jim: Will provide a list of proposed working group documents together
          with the charter proposal, and the list can comment on priority and
          Report from the Stockholm EPP workshop
          Ulrich (host of the Stockholm WS) (IIS): was directly after the CENTR
          Jamboree - 40 participants - Registrants and Registries.
          Antoin: Is there understanding in the industry that more harmonization
          is needed?
          Ulrich: Yes, registries understand that registrars complain.
          Registration Operations Workshop
          Had two regops WS - one in Dallas was focused on EPP extensions,
          registered in total 18 extensions since.
          Scott encourages people to register their Extensions.
          ROW 2015-2 was on last Sunday, and focused on RDAP.  Eg. one gap in
          RDAP is the missing status values Gustavo presented an RDAP profile
          for gTLDs.
          Fracisco: RDAP profile still in development, and not published
          yet. Presentation is available, though.  Second week of September is
          the GDD summit - Session on RDAP profile might be considered for the
          Ulrich: Seconds Scott that process to register an extension is really
          easy. Single email, takes one minute. Do it.

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