* 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: Barry Leiba, Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov | 2016-Mar-04 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-105 regext minutes

Session 2019-07-25 1000-1200: Van Horne - regext chatroom

Minutes

minutes-105-regext-00 minutes



          REGEXT meeting at IETF 105 Montreal 2019-07-25 10:00-1200
          
          Co-chair James Galvin in the room
          Co-chair Antoin Verschuren on jabber/meetecho
          
          Jabber scribe:  Suzanne Wolf
          Minutes: Ulrich Wisser
          
          Note well on screen https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
          
          Introduction by James Galvin
          
          Three RFC published
          - Change Poll Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8590/
          - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping
            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8543/
          - Organization Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8544/
          
          Two documents in IESG considerations
          - Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/
          - Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension
          for Strict
            Bundling Registration (Informational)
            https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration
          
          Documents in WG LC
          - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-login-security/
          
          Data Escrow, Franzisco Arias on behalf of Gustavo Lozano
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping/
          - Antoin Verschuren asks on intended status, why standards track
          - Richard Wilhelm, Verisign, we need privacy considerations
          - Richard Wilhelm, Verisign, data requirements will change in future
          - Marc Blanchet, this is deployed and stable
          - James Gould, Verisign, we need to relax some requirements to optional
          
          RDAP partial response/sorting and paging/reverse search, Mario Loffredo
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/
          - James Galvin, co-chair, reminds group about Milestones
          - Richard Wilhelm, Verisign, do not introduce new features before we
          have operational experience
          - Tom Harrison, APNIC, feedback on technical details of search
          - Stephan Brotzmeyer, Afnic, draft needs much more specific privacy
          considerations
          - Andrew Newton, ARIN, we need more privacy considerations, we do not
          need to wait on ICANN
          - Peter Koch, via Jabber, agrees with Stephan Bortzmeyer
          - Richard Wilhelm, Verisign, waiting not on ICANN but on operational
          experience, especially on GDPR influence
          - James Galvin, co-chair, we need more privacy discussions on these
          Documents
          - James Gould, Verisign, we need implementations status
          - Scott Hollenbeck, Verisign, implementation status is hard, people need
          to inform author
          
           Is this EPP/RDAP 2 stream model working?, George Michaelson
           - Barry Laiba, AD, we are flexible about the stream
           - Andrew Newton, ARIN, is the model in the charter?
           - Ulrich Wisser, .SE, there are reasons for this model which should
           be documented
          
          
          Potential New work
          
          RDAP Deployment Findings and Update, Marc Blanchet
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings/
          - Andrew Newton, ARIN, wg should be working on this
          - Scott Hollenbeck, Verisign, review RDAP RFC documents
          - Richard Wilhelm, Verisign, evolve to BCP
          - James Gould, Verisign, BCP is good idea, document needs reworking
          - Stephan Bortzmeyer, Afnic, should registry or RFC documents be fixed
          
          
          Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Secure Authorization Information
          for Transfer, James Gould
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer/
          - Barry Leiba, AD, what is the intended status, should be standards track
          - Ulrich Wisser, .SE, that is what we implemented
          - Jody Kolker, Godaddy, get authcode when you want to transfer
          
          
          RDAP jCard Profile, Tom Harrison
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rdap-jcard-profile/
          - Barry Leiba, AD, the AD's think jscontact is likely better solution
          - James Gould, Verisign, should we replace it?
          - Andrew Newton, ARIN, we should stay with jcard, because of current
          deployment
          - Neil Jenkins, Fastmeil, jscontact goal is to be simple to use
          - Barry Leiba, not AD, consider alternative and then decide which solution
          is better
          - George Michaelson, Apnic, multilingual is important
          - Neil Jenkins, Fastmail, yes - jscontact can support multilingual
          
          Registration Report Definition, Joseph Yee
          - James Galvin, co-chair, we have similar document in backlog
          - James Gould, Verisign, both documents are very close
          
          



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