Monday, November 10, 2014< ^ >
paulwouters has set the subject to: MILE, IETF 85, Atlanta
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[22:58:24] Adam Montville joins the room
[23:00:49] alexey.melnikov joins the room
[23:01:25] alexey.melnikov has set the subject to: MILE, IETF 91, Honolulu
[23:02:46] joe.parrott joins the room
[23:03:19] Chris Inacio joins the room
[23:03:29] <Chris Inacio> Hello all
[23:03:42] <Adam Montville> Scribing again, Chris?
[23:04:24] Kathleen Moriarty joins the room
[23:05:57] <Chris Inacio> jabber, and note taking when roman is presenting.
[23:06:02] <alexey.melnikov> Just reviewed document status. Base spec is close to being done. IODEF Enumeration References is near IETF LC.
[23:06:03] <Chris Inacio> Can you see the slides?
[23:06:12] <Adam Montville> Yes
[23:06:18] <Chris Inacio> cool.
[23:06:42] <alexey.melnikov> Talking about IODEF Enumeration Draft
[23:08:23] <Adam Montville> :-)
[23:09:24] <alexey.melnikov> Room agreement that we don't need to ask IANA to create URL redirecting to documents defining various enumerations
[23:09:30] joe.parrott leaves the room
[23:10:42] <Adam Montville> I can confirm on the list and make the update.  Any recommendation on timeline for response?
[23:10:54] <alexey.melnikov> Should we keep "update RFC5070"? Probably no need, but check on the mailing list
[23:11:18] <alexey.melnikov> Adam Montville: are you asking how long should you wait for response?
[23:11:26] <alexey.melnikov> I would say 2 weeks
[23:13:42] Praveen Kumar joins the room
[23:14:17] <Adam Montville> Alexey: Yes.  2 weeks it is.
[23:14:25] <alexey.melnikov> Roman is talking. Slide 5
[23:14:54] <alexey.melnikov> Slide 6
[23:30:39] <alexey.melnikov> Extended discussion about attribute extensibility. Currently implementations require to validate schema. What happens if they see a new attribute is found and the application validating has old schema?
[23:31:04] <alexey.melnikov> Some discussion on Expert Review versa Specification Required. No objection to Expert Review
[23:32:42] <Chris Inacio> slide 8
[23:41:25] <alexey.melnikov> Need to specify signature (ds:Signature) canonicalization method. This can be the identity canonicalization
[23:42:37] Meetecho joins the room
[23:42:43] <alexey.melnikov> Roman: is use of ds:X509Data Ok? No objections in the room
[23:43:57] <alexey.melnikov> Add media type indicator for files? No objection from the room
[23:47:01] <alexey.melnikov> Slide 9
[23:51:54] <alexey.melnikov> Discussion on whether certificate@valid description is good enough. The list of cases considered "invalid" might not be complete.
[23:51:55] <Chris Inacio> slide 10
[23:53:37] <Adam Montville> +1 to Dave's comment.
[23:54:38] Chris Inacio leaves the room
[23:54:46] Chris Inacio joins the room
[23:54:47] <Adam Montville> I would prefer to see options.
[23:55:00] <Adam Montville> extensibility
[23:55:01] <Adam Montville> yes
[23:55:21] <Adam Montville> A bit tongue in cheek, but a reference format? ;-)
[23:55:33] <Chris Inacio> do you want me to say that?
[23:55:52] <alexey.melnikov> David W. - suggestion to make SoftwareType extensible, as current conventions for identifying software are evolving
[23:56:20] <Adam Montville> No.
[23:56:28] <Adam Montville> I missed Take's comment though.
[23:56:31] <Chris Inacio> ?? voice that
[23:56:49] <Adam Montville> Chris: No, time's passed and I think it's being worked out.
[23:56:51] <Chris Inacio> I didn't fully get Take's comment either, something about how SCI did stuff
[23:58:07] <alexey.melnikov> Roman: how to represent DNS data in XML?
[23:58:21] <alexey.melnikov> Paul Hoffman - I have a draft for JSON...
[23:59:53] <Adam Montville> Hand
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!