Tuesday, November 6, 2018< ^ >
Patrick Mevzek has set the subject to: REGEXT WG at IETF-102
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[05:00:25] yone joins the room
[06:37:27] HK7pcrYn joins the room
[06:37:31] Meetecho joins the room
[06:38:55] SHollenbeck joins the room
[06:40:52] SHollenbeck has set the subject to: REGEXT WG at IETF-103
[06:45:09] Martin Casanova joins the room
[06:45:12] Antoin Verschuren joins the room
[06:45:14] Jody Kolker joins the room
[06:45:14] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[06:47:36] <Antoin Verschuren> Hi All!
[06:48:42] Kal Feher joins the room
[06:48:56] <Antoin Verschuren> In a hectic preparation, I forgot to register for a meetecho presentation account. This means I don't have possibility to break in with audio, but I will be in the Jabber room...
[06:49:30] <Antoin Verschuren> And I can join the regular queue..
[06:49:51] <Antoin Verschuren> Welcome to REGEXT!
[06:50:45] koji joins the room
[06:51:51] Roger Carney joins the room
[06:51:57] paulwouters joins the room
[06:52:31] <Meetecho> Antoin Verschuren: you can still speak, if you use the virtual queue
[06:52:58] <paulwouters> and i will relay any mic: comments from here to the room
[06:53:06] <Antoin Verschuren> Yes, I thought so, thank you!
[06:55:18] shinta joins the room
[06:55:22] <paulwouters> (i do have to go in 45 minutes, so hopefully someone else can pick up jabber duties then)
[06:56:10] <paulwouters> [charter update]
[06:56:59] <paulwouters> [Existing document status]
[06:59:37] <paulwouters> Jim Could:
[07:00:03] <paulwouters> associated with changepoll and xml namespace. feedback was sent to the list to include epp scoping
[07:00:15] <paulwouters> too impactful to change namespace in the last minute
[07:00:40] <paulwouters> highly recommend people speak up to changes to xml namespaces.
[07:01:59] <paulwouters> [past WG last call: bundling-registration]
[07:02:25] <paulwouters> [Human Rights Review]
[07:02:49] <paulwouters> Jim: some discussion on the mailing list. specifically on one draft.
[07:03:24] <paulwouters> advise from area director: these are individual contributions. there is no formality behind the HR research group
[07:03:45] Suneesh Babu joins the room
[07:04:04] <paulwouters> James Could:
[07:04:14] <paulwouters> (on regext-verificationcode)
[07:04:19] Suneesh Babu leaves the room
[07:04:30] <paulwouters> I identified 1 item of feedback [agreed with]
[07:05:02] <paulwouters> what was necc is that proof of verification should be stored. we added to Security Considerations. Data stored must follow applicable privacy laws
[07:05:32] <paulwouters> that is only relevant feedback
[07:05:57] <paulwouters> [name?]:  it was not the only technical issue in my opinion
[07:06:08] <paulwouters> drafts dont have advise "please follow laws"
[07:06:33] <paulwouters> what document status will this have?  3735 sats it depends on number of use cases and deployment
[07:06:58] <paulwouters> there was discussion on the list. if this document has limited use, extension can be done without an RFC
[07:07:02] <paulwouters> if intended for non-wide deployment
[07:07:24] <paulwouters> James: this is a generic capability. we included implementation status to the draft. we see there are multiple independent implementations
[07:07:37] <paulwouters> Scott H: I am author and can speak to what it says
[07:08:16] <paulwouters> extensions can be non-IETF documents. nothing is a mandate. no text that says anything about broad applicability. this WG made a decision it should be on standards track. I see no reason to deviate
[07:08:35] <paulwouters> Curshabad: quotes RFC
[07:09:15] <paulwouters> Jim: it is standards track. do you think there are additional technical concerns that were not addresseed by james
[07:09:25] <paulwouters> Curshabad: yes there are. two or three
[07:10:04] <paulwouters> Curshabad: grace period is given to VSP. draft does not define behaviour when VSP has not responded in grace period. It is in the patent. info should be in the draft
[07:10:41] <paulwouters> James: grace period is not assoviated with VSP, but with Registry itself. If registry does not receive it, registry will do something according to its own policy. not job of the draft to set policy
[07:11:42] <paulwouters> Jim: does it say that the action is based on server policy
[07:11:49] <paulwouters> James: will review and if needed clarify text
[07:13:06] <paulwouters> Curshabad: when object goes to VSP and comes back. integrity is mainted. but prescribed action shouldn't be forwarded as received by VSP but should match registration
[07:13:28] <paulwouters> we dont want VSP to send other information that is used instead.
[07:14:15] <paulwouters> make sure VSP did not alter anything
[07:14:24] <paulwouters> eg hostname
[07:14:35] <paulwouters> james:not all verification is associated with domain name
[07:14:44] <paulwouters> Curshabad: i mean for all 3 modes
[07:15:00] <paulwouters> James: that is an issue for the VSP. we dont want to dictate how to collect or store information
[07:15:21] <paulwouters> Curshabad: obligation that it compoares original request with object with verification code by Registrar
[07:15:58] <Antoin Verschuren> MIC: What is the attack scenario that you are trying to avoid?
[07:16:05] <paulwouters> James: in terms of RFC, it is the client's responsibility
[07:16:31] <paulwouters> Curshabad: there should be a human rights consideration section in the document
[07:16:56] <paulwouters> so anyone looking at document that is willing to implement it is sufficiently clear about this
[07:17:10] <paulwouters> James: concern mixing technical and policy
[07:17:23] <paulwouters> James: if you have recommend text......
[07:17:49] <paulwouters> James: i dont think this is needed
[07:18:03] <paulwouters> Jim: we addressed technical concerns 9except item 3)
[07:18:44] <paulwouters> Jim: item 3 in two parts. Andrew/Adam suggested, if there is to be human rights, then there should be a section. Not sure they didnt say tat
[07:18:54] <paulwouters> Curshabad: quotes both people to add section
[07:19:11] <paulwouters> [disagreement on whether it is done or not]
[07:19:29] <paulwouters> Curshabad: there is no HR mentions now
[07:19:31] <paulwouters> Jim: right
[07:20:02] <paulwouters> Niels: very happy we are having this discussion
[07:20:31] <paulwouters> Niels: we gave suggested text
[07:21:22] <paulwouters> Niels: clearly enumerate the items
[07:22:01] <paulwouters> Scott Hollebeek: we have documents representing IETF consensus for various Sections. we dont have one for Human Rights Protocol Considerations
[07:22:34] <paulwouters> Scott: as author, I would be at a loss as to what to write. This document should not be the test case. I'd like this to go a level above this WG about IETF consensus abour HRPCs
[07:23:21] <paulwouters> [didntget name]: we agreed to do something, and now we are not doing the actual work. We could just document it. It is not that much that is asked of us.
[07:23:40] <paulwouters> that was Ulrich Wisser
[07:24:11] <paulwouters> Jim: we wont be able to make that final decision here.
[07:24:39] <paulwouters> Jim: it is for this WG to decide what to add or not
[07:25:30] <paulwouters> Niels: the right of changes are helt by WG, not author. once adopted by WG
[07:26:19] Kal Feher leaves the room
[07:26:21] <paulwouters> Niels: RFC 8280 has guidelines on writing HR considerations
[07:26:30] <paulwouters> Niels: maybe bring this up to the plenairy
[07:27:04] <paulwouters> James: I am not qualified
[07:28:51] <paulwouters> Jim: it is up to this WG to decide whether to add HR consideration. And James will honour that. He is allowed his own opinion to not add it.
[07:28:54] eduardo.alvarez joins the room
[07:29:05] <paulwouters> James: I am unqualified. someone else would need to write it
[07:29:13] <paulwouters> Niels: we are happy to help
[07:29:40] bhoeneis joins the room
[07:29:47] <paulwouters> Alexander Mayrhofer: some things are overreaching in the draft. Given all obligatory Sections. Adding another is frustrating.
[07:30:46] <paulwouters> Alexander: requirng that a protocol stores privacy information would make it unusuable for a large part of the work to implement
[07:32:19] <paulwouters> [New candidates for adoption]
[07:34:58] <paulwouters> [sorting-and-paging] presentation
[07:41:53] <paulwouters> Jim: purpose of this discussion is not to resolve issues, but is about presenting and getting clarity, to go from there [about adoption]
[07:42:20] <SHollenbeck> On RFC 8280: It's Informational. RFCs 3552 (Security Considerations) and 8126 (IANA Considerations) are BCPs.
[07:42:49] <paulwouters> [reverse-search]
[07:46:08] <paulwouters> Niels: I would be interested if you compared this to the GDPR. ICANN is not the juristiction this falls under. at first glance ,this seems to violate the GDPR
[07:46:33] <paulwouters> Jim: Let's not discuss this now. We have a technical feature we need. whether it can be used will be decided at other places
[07:47:13] <paulwouters> Niels: we have an ethical responsibility about what we enable or not. And not ignore that. Eg see ACM code of conduct
[07:48:19] bhoeneis leaves the room
[07:48:56] <paulwouters> room: I unfortunately have to go now. someone else will have to jabber scribe
[07:49:19] paulwouters leaves the room
[07:53:46] paulwouters joins the room
[08:09:17] Kal Feher joins the room
[08:09:59] bhoeneis joins the room
[08:10:17] <Kal Feher> remote participants do you need a scribe? I'm happy to sit in the hot seat if required
[08:13:36] <Kal Feher> Alex Mayrhofer at mic:
[08:18:41] <Kal Feher> ulrich at mic:
[08:19:25] <Kal Feher> is unhandled namespaces a problem we need to solve?
[08:21:39] bhoeneis joins the room
[08:21:49] bhoeneis leaves the room
[08:23:31] <Kal Feher> Jim Galvin + Ulrich and +jim Gould chatting about whether this is a real technical problem
[08:26:07] <Kal Feher> that was Mario at mic
[08:26:27] <Kal Feher> Jim Galvin talking now
[08:30:17] <Kal Feher> Alex M suggests this document should not fall into regext work
[08:30:53] <Kal Feher> Roger at mic
[08:31:16] <Kal Feher> Tim earlier suggested that SFT was not his preferred transfer method
[08:32:49] <Kal Feher> Roger talking about registry mapping
[08:33:11] <Kal Feher> Jody you should definately ask him hard questions
[08:37:39] <Kal Feher> Jim Galvin suggests no more than 5 open milestones
[08:38:18] <Kal Feher> any comments for or against?
[08:40:54] koji joins the room
[08:41:43] <Kal Feher> Scott at mic
[08:42:06] <Antoin Verschuren> MIC:Scott: Why does your standard depend on ICANN???
[08:42:47] <Kal Feher> roger at mic
[08:43:00] <Antoin Verschuren> That should have read as a question to Scott..
[08:43:24] <Kal Feher> understood
[08:44:36] <Kal Feher> scott at mic:
[08:44:50] <Kal Feher> Jim Gould at mic
[08:45:10] <Antoin Verschuren> It should be the other way round right: ICANN conforming to standards.... But I'll read the draft first..
[08:45:15] <Kal Feher> supports limit, but notes that not all drafts are equal
[08:45:38] Roger Carney leaves the room
[08:45:47] <SHollenbeck> @Antoin: It helps to know your requirements...
[08:46:02] <Antoin Verschuren> That's true.
[08:46:10] <Kal Feher> Jim Galvin speaking.
[08:49:42] <Antoin Verschuren> How about the number is dependent on the number of volunteer document shepherds :)
[08:49:55] <Kal Feher> Jim Galvin suggests now a limit of 4 which under exception might become 5
[08:50:12] <Kal Feher> good suggestion Antoin
[08:51:57] <Kal Feher> Remote people.  any copmments for mic about those actions
[08:52:29] <Kal Feher> Adam at mic
[08:52:55] koji leaves the room
[08:52:58] <Kal Feher> supports a goal target and an upper limit as a seperate value
[08:53:33] shinta leaves the room
[08:53:35] <Antoin Verschuren> Well done folks!
[08:53:35] bhoeneis leaves the room
[08:53:37] <Kal Feher> we are done.
[08:53:44] Meetecho leaves the room
[08:53:49] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[08:53:51] koji leaves the room
[08:53:55] Kal Feher leaves the room
[08:53:56] Antoin Verschuren leaves the room
[08:53:56] Martin Casanova leaves the room
[08:53:56] Jody Kolker leaves the room
[08:54:00] yone leaves the room
[08:58:19] paulwouters leaves the room
[08:59:37] SHollenbeck leaves the room
[09:00:47] eduardo.alvarez leaves the room: Connection failed: connection closed
[09:00:48] HK7pcrYn leaves the room
[09:09:54] shinta joins the room
[09:10:22] shinta leaves the room
[09:13:59] bhoeneis joins the room
[09:17:49] bhoeneis leaves the room
[09:28:56] paulwouters joins the room
[09:32:55] paulwouters leaves the room
[09:49:12] bhoeneis joins the room
[09:53:00] bhoeneis leaves the room
[10:17:38] eduardo.alvarez joins the room
[10:18:43] eduardo.alvarez joins the room
[10:27:17] eduardo.alvarez leaves the room
[10:35:26] eduardo.alvarez leaves the room: Connection failed: connection closed
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!