Re: WG Discussion Summary with Draft Document Impact

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> For the benefit of those of you who weren't able to attend today's WG
> session at IETF-51:

We'd about 75 attendees present, there was mbone coverage (Hi Mom!), and
I made the 2nd WG presentation on the set of three non-schema extensions
to EPP we call XRP, viz:
	1. transport mapping for BEEP [rfc3080], which has a transport
	   mapping for TCP [rfc3081], with authentication, asynchronity,
	   and 256 message- and user-profiled channels per tcp connection, 
and
	2. addition of <push>, which allows registries to initiate, and
	   requires registrars to listen (or indicate that they won't),
and (not presented at IETF-50)
	3. container extension of the object model, adding inheritance
	   and nesting, allowing "patterns" for common cases and making
	   bulk ops trivial.

> There were a few discussions that will have an impact on the current draft
> EPP documents:
> 
> By a very slim majority, folks in the room expressed a preference to defer
> protocol design to address data collection policy requirement 8.4-[1] rather
> than allowing it to be a "must have" prior to document progression.  Some
> others in the room expressed discomfort with this option, but the WGs
> ability to design features to address this requirement as-written remain.

This is the fourth extension I've proposed, an extension to add language to
express the data collection policies of data collectors using epp. For the
first time in IETF history discussion of the subject didn't slip down the
twin illdefined ratholes of "security" and "privacy", to the credit of the
contributors present.

>                     ... Eric will offer up suggested text to be added to the
> EPP draft(s).

The first will be draft-ietf-provreg-epp-beep-00.txt, assuming that the WG
wants to accept the document. I'll send a pre-ID version of the draft to
the list by the 10th.

The second is a series of changes to draft-ietf-provreg-epp-04. I'll send a
suggested delta to Scott by the 10th, or earlier as Scott desires.

The third will be draft-ietf-provreg-epp-containers-00.txt, again assuming
that the WG wants to accept the document. I'll send a pre-ID version of the
draft to the list by the 10th.        

The fourth is rather more work, as Scott noted, it is time to design or to
defer. I hope that we chose to design. Provreg is specifying a protocol in
the "onward transport" area of personal and technical data collection.

In another industry consortia I worked in last year (CPExchange) the problem
of logging the data collection policy in force at each node in a transit path
has been solved, which included noting the controlling jurisdiction. In that
work we used the P3P vocabulary then available. This isn't intractible, and
pretending governments don't exist may have reached its end-of-shelf-life in
this technical area.

I'll send a draft skeleton and a series of memos on bits that could/should
go into the fully developed draft, starting this weekend, with the goal of
getting a candidate draft ready for the I-D editor as an individual or as a
WG draft by the end of August. Mark Nottingham, who is also on the W3C P3P
Specification Working Group along with me, and co-chairs the Apps WEBI WG, 
has graciously offered to help.

> The requirements draft will be updated soon to address the IESG's comments.
> I'll then begin working on EPP draft updates to deal with these changes and
> others that may arise out of today's list discussions.

I've sent out a summary of nits in the requirements draft, as I'd really like
to see it a "generic" and not "generic domain name" requirements draft, and
there are a few minor errors. I'll work with Scott on this off-list.

> If I've misstated anything, please feel free to clarify.

Ditto.

Eric