Re: Revised PROVREG WG minutes - 53rd IETF

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>]

Hi Scott,
Sorry I didnt respond to the minutes earlier.
At the Minneapolis meeting, I did talk about the SG implmentation.
Neteka is finalizing the EPP implementation at .sg to be launched in May
2002.
One of the issues we faced during the implementation was the need to have
multiple statuses for a domain name.  In fact now that I think more about
it, I believe this is probably an interesting enough topic that might
benefit to be added into the core documents.  The flexibility for multiple
statuses means that additional EPP commands is needed to add/delete/edit
statuses instead of simply updating the domain info.
thoughts everyone?
Edmon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Rose" <scottr@antd.nist.gov>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Revised PROVREG WG minutes - 53rd IETF


> I got everyone's comments, and made the corrections.  Here is the
> (final?) version of the minutes.  I will submit them to minutes@ietf.org
> by the end of the week.
>
> Thanks for the comments everyone,
> Scott Rose
>
>
>
> PROVREG Meeting minutes
> Taken by Scott Rose (scottr@nist.gov)
>
> 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
>  - Melbourne IT (for AusRegistry work) (B. Tonkin):  .au registry
> release (also a Sourceforge project).
>   1. Does contain implementation specific extensions (differs from .us
> extensions)
>   2. first country code to use EPP
>  - Verisign (S. Hollenbeck).
>   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 (F. Arias):
>   1. looking at rolling EPP out.  But using other means to authenticate
> the registrant.  Either using the registrar and EPP (with some further
> security functionality like PKI) or some other authentication protocol
> (not relying on EPP).
>
> 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.
>    - Original poser of the question not present, so no further progress
> on debate could be made - Scott Hollenbeck gave some explination of the
> status of the draft (on hold).
>