To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Scott Rose <scottr@antd.nist.gov>
Date:
Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:55:09 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Minn provreg meeting notes
Here's the first draft of the meeting minutes from the PROVREG WG. Please send any corrections/comments to me. If none, the minutes will be submitted to the meeting proceedings. Gov't in action ;-) Scott R. ************************************************************************ Provreg Meeting minutes 1. WG status (Ed Lewis) - Core Documents: In IESG process in various stages - Other documents - no discussion - 1 Unsolicited individual submission - Next target: move core drafts to draft standard as per RFC 2026 1. Patrik F: We need 2 independent client and 2 servers to test interop. (all must work together) 2. Last Call Comments on EPP drafts (Scott Hollenbeck) - Requirements Draft: 1. WG last call completed 2. Comments by IESG in Feb, completed in Feb. 3. Waiting IESG - EPP core drafts 1. Last call ends 29 March - few comments for additions or corrections - Questions Patrik: IESG or AD has not received any more comments than those mentioned in the meeting. 3. In-process documents - BEEP - new revision available in the future. 1. Comment: Is anyone planning any implementation on this draft? - Container draft - will not be continued. - SMTP draft - Still being worked on (rumor). Some interest in seeing this as a draft. - Push feature draft - missing description document. No one has responsibility for that draft. If Push feature is desired, please submit an individual submission draft. 4. Implementations (about 5 ) - RTK (Sourceforge project) release Java version of registry tool 1. Different releases for different levels of EPP(draft revisions) - plan on restructuring releases into one package - Nominum: .au registry release. 1. Adding different extensions than listed in draft 2. first country code to use EPP - Verisign 1. Non-core effort (smaller domains) using EPP for registry 2. When EPP reaches RFC status, .com/net/org will go to EPP 3. Registry (Verisign) will not hold customer information/contact. That will still reside at the registrar level. 4. All RRP based registration systems will eventually migrate to EPP once contract expires - .sg registry 1. assumed that one status for domain name - NIC Mexico: 1. looking at rolling EPP out. But using other means to authenticate registrar-registrar communication 5. Registry-specific extensions (H. Liu) - .us TLD implementation for public review - Informational - may not be WG draft, but informational as an extension to EPP. Test to see if EPP really is extensible and still remain interpretational. - Differences from draft specs: 1. Collect NEXUS info for usTLD registration 2. 2 new parameters: AppPurpose and NexusCatagory - Alternatives: Name-value pairs or new XML schema definition - Comments: 1. Where scheme modified? ContactObject extension field 6. Scott H. draft on EPP and DNSSEC/ENUM an individual submission, but belongs/will remain independent submission (not DNSEXT) and hoped to be included in DNSOP WG - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-secdns-00.txt 7. Next Steps - Need for a BCP/Informational RFC on how these extensions should look? 1. moved to list - Interoperability test: of core protocol specs, not extensions. 1. When: wait until we get RFC status - winner - No BEEP/SMTP comments General comments/questions 1. if we start talking about extensions - rechartering necessary? 2. Question of "status of command" request message - what it means and the status of the draft. - Author not present, so no formal answer available.