IETF
regent
regext@jabber.ietf.org
Monday, March 27, 2017< ^ >
Scott Hollenbeck has set the subject to: REGEXT WG at IETF-97
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[00:06:54] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[00:09:26] Chinien Wang joins the room
[00:11:31] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[01:15:28] Chinien Wang joins the room
[03:59:17] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[04:21:46] Chinien Wang joins the room
[04:38:02] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[05:02:10] Chinien Wang joins the room
[06:14:56] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[06:15:02] Chinien Wang joins the room
[06:34:45] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[06:34:55] Chinien Wang joins the room
[06:35:21] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[15:27:13] Chinien Wang joins the room
[16:45:31] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[19:43:16] Chinien Wang joins the room
[19:56:28] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[20:03:38] Meetecho joins the room
[20:11:20] Jim Galvin joins the room
[20:15:08] Mario Loffredo joins the room
[20:15:10] Antoin Verschuren joins the room
[20:16:32] Andrew Fregly joins the room
[20:17:04] Ben Levac joins the room
[20:17:57] Edward Lewis joins the room
[20:18:44] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[20:19:27] <Edward Lewis> Tech Check: I hear Jim and I see Antoine
[20:19:50] Andrew Fregly leaves the room
[20:20:06] <Antoin Verschuren> Hi Ed!
[20:20:15] Ben Levac leaves the room
[20:20:18] <Edward Lewis> I'mwaving...withoug camera
[20:22:54] Roger Murray joins the room
[20:23:00] Chinien Wang joins the room
[20:23:39] marco@nl joins the room
[20:24:17] marco@nl has set the subject to: REGEXT WG at IETF-98
[20:25:19] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[20:25:29] Jim Gould joins the room
[20:26:03] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[20:26:07] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[20:27:42] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[20:27:46] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[20:28:56] Ben Levac joins the room
[20:30:39] <Antoin Verschuren> You can move the camera and take the mic
[20:32:20] <Antoin Verschuren> Thanx!
[20:33:17] <Antoin Verschuren> the mic is only for meetecho, caant the volume be turned down for the room only?
[20:36:52] <Antoin Verschuren> I'll just use the jabber!
[20:38:09] <Jim Galvin> thanks antoin
[20:40:33] Roger Murray leaves the room
[20:40:47] <Antoin Verschuren> How about a third response? Available, non-available, premium?
[20:41:43] Ken Bannister joins the room
[20:41:47] Roger Murray joins the room
[20:41:53] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[20:42:26] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[20:43:58] Ken Bannister leaves the room
[20:44:41] <Antoin Verschuren> Woulnd't some registrars do bulk over EPP, but premiums over another interface? f.e. using another registrar that does support premiums? So they just need a signal that is NOT non-available
[20:47:09] Olafur joins the room
[20:49:34] <Antoin Verschuren> It's not about GETTING the name, it's about the correct answer to a check command. An available domain, premium or not, should not get a response "non-available". I agree that is part local policy what the response is, but it should not be ambiguous...
[20:50:53] <Jim Galvin> @antoin - yes.  discussions are about registries deciding for themselves exactly what non-ambiguous is
[20:51:18] <Jim Galvin> so you may get a failure for premium but you won't for non-premium
[20:53:44] Peter Koch joins the room
[20:55:21] Christian Saunders joins the room
[21:11:19] Roger Murray leaves the room
[21:18:01] Olafur leaves the room
[21:18:45] <Antoin Verschuren> OK, regarding your presentation, Why did you make the option 2 so complex in the sense that the provider and role would be Tags and not just a pointer. So basicaly the domain model option 1, but just change the reseller object into an organization object, and the reseller (ID) pointer is the role identifier.....
[21:20:21] <Antoin Verschuren> You shouolnd "Tag"the object as a role, but just "tag"the pointer between the Domain/Host/Contact as the role the object plays....
[21:20:37] Chinien Wang joins the room
[21:23:41] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[21:27:02] <Antoin Verschuren> So registries don't see the need, registrars don't see the need, but I thought this request came from registrants. Where is there voice in this discussion?
[21:27:17] <Antoin Verschuren> their voice...
[21:33:30] <Jim Galvin> the need for reseller information is partly driven by ICANN policies that's all
[21:33:49] <Antoin Verschuren> At the request of registrants I thought....
[21:33:55] <Jim Galvin> i think I heard that there's no need to extend this work beyond what is currently "required".
[21:34:08] <Jim Galvin> not sure about registrant context
[21:34:16] Jim Gould leaves the room
[21:38:51] Ben Levac leaves the room
[21:40:17] <Antoin Verschuren> Is that just as secure as bootstrapping the key over EPP?
[21:40:26] Christian Saunders leaves the room
[21:43:07] <Jim Galvin> we're waviing at you
[21:44:08] <Peter Koch> no, Antoin, it is not: ability to change zone content would allow you to influence registration data
[21:44:10] marco@nl leaves the room
[21:44:50] <Antoin Verschuren> ok
[21:49:08] <Antoin Verschuren> But he grabs an INSECURE querry!
[21:50:17] <Edward Lewis> Bye
[21:50:34] Peter Koch leaves the room
[21:51:20] Antoin Verschuren leaves the room
[21:51:20] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[21:51:20] Edward Lewis leaves the room
[21:51:21] Mario Loffredo leaves the room
[21:52:20] Meetecho leaves the room
[21:53:31] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[22:33:27] Roger Murray joins the room
[22:42:59] Chinien Wang joins the room
[22:43:51] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[22:43:53] Chinien Wang joins the room
[23:36:47] Roger Murray leaves the room
[23:45:30] Chinien Wang leaves the room
[23:58:17] Roger Murray joins the room
[23:58:17] Roger Murray leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!