IETF
weirds@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, 27 March 2012< ^ >
cm-msk has set the subject to: WEIRDS BoF at IETF 83
Room Configuration

GMT+0
[07:34:38] cm-msk joins the room
[07:35:03] cm-msk leaves the room
[08:07:16] cm-msk joins the room
[09:32:35] cm-msk leaves the room
[10:54:20] SM joins the room
[11:09:58] SM leaves the room
[12:21:28] cm-msk joins the room
[12:33:36] cm-msk leaves the room
[13:15:50] Hugo Salgado joins the room
[13:18:49] yone joins the room
[13:18:59] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[13:19:11] <Andrew Sullivan> Do we have remote participants?
[13:19:29] SM joins the room
[13:19:59] bje joins the room
[13:20:31] <Hugo Salgado> Hi Andrew. I'm Hugo from .CL
[13:20:37] <Andrew Sullivan> hi
[13:20:53] <Hugo Salgado> Audio feed is ok.
[13:20:55] Klensin joins the room
[13:21:40] barryleiba joins the room
[13:21:45] Jim Galvin joins the room
[13:22:55] resnick joins the room
[13:23:14] dcrocker joins the room
[13:25:42] <Klensin> Add 1 to both counts
[13:25:46] <Klensin> Yes
[13:26:32] <Jim Galvin> two hands for questions on the charter
[13:26:40] <Jim Galvin> from the room, not me
[13:28:31] <Andrew Sullivan> John, on the first two questions, if I understand you correctly you think there is _not_ a problem and the provlem is _not_ clearly and correctly stated?
[13:28:41] Arturo Servin Ü joins the room
[13:29:05] suz joins the room
[13:29:28] <Klensin> I think there is a problem, I think the problem is clearly enough stated for charter purposes. I still have deep reservations about committing to Names work.
[13:29:35] <Andrew Sullivan> ok, thanks
[13:30:01] Francisco Arias joins the room
[13:33:34] <Klensin> I think there is a problem, I think the problem is clearly enough stated for charter purposes. I still have deep reservations about committing to Names work. I recognize that some name registrars (however large) want to see work done in this area. At the same time, I've seen many times in which organizations have told the IETF "we want to see work on this" and then told other bodies "we are working on it" as an excuse to not do anything... and then, in relative secret, work against rules or conditions that would mandate implementation ... and then claim they couldn't do it because no one else would. That comment applies to ICANN's situation but moves beyond it -- we've seen it lots of other times as well.
[13:34:07] avri joins the room
[13:34:16] <Klensin> So I agree with both of the last two speakers -- we still don't have an adequate case for doing names now. (repeat at Mic if you think that would be useful)
[13:34:18] <Andrew Sullivan> is that for the mic?
[13:34:22] <Andrew Sullivan> ok
[13:36:13] wseltzer joins the room
[13:36:14] <Klensin> I agree with Peter -- there is a difference, but not enough to have made a difference.
[13:36:17] ogudmund joins the room
[13:37:18] =JeffH joins the room
[13:40:15] <avri> i agree with Jim on this - this group should not set aside names. The work needs to be done, will be done and it is best to have a coordinated solution between names and numbers and to avoid diverging if possible.
[13:40:21] naptee joins the room
[13:40:35] <Klensin> If "we have to do something" and the world ends in January 2013 if we don't,, July 2013 for a document to the IESG is a ltitle late, isn't it?
[13:41:39] gshapiro joins the room
[13:43:38] <=JeffH> we agree with JimG on this (address names) also
[13:43:53] ray joins the room
[13:43:55] danny joins the room
[13:44:01] <Andrew Sullivan> @=JeffH: mic?
[13:44:26] <=JeffH> if queue isn't closed.....
[13:44:37] pawal joins the room
[13:44:37] <Andrew Sullivan> nope. You're behind Ed Lewis.
[13:44:49] <Andrew Sullivan> Oh, duh, you're here :)
[13:45:24] <resnick> @avri: What is your feeling about the *possibility* of divergence? If it looks like names (or numbers) would get things stuck, should the group be allowed to let the solutions diverge?
[13:45:29] <avri> as for coordinating the solution, i think they should be coordinated unless there is a really good reason to cut them apart. that reason could be technical (dont know but could be) or because one or the other (names or numbers) falls apart as a an effort - detaching efforts for management reasons.
[13:45:45] <resnick> Timing. Thanks. :-)
[13:47:49] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) joins the room
[13:47:54] john.levine joins the room
[13:47:57] <ray> +1 at Ed Lewis
[13:48:02] <danny> +1
[13:48:23] <suz> all the differences are at layers about 7.
[13:48:26] <ray> and it doesn't matter if we had different contact objects if all the fields are optional
[13:48:29] sean.s.shen joins the room
[13:48:31] <suz> above, too.
[13:49:49] <Klensin> I took "registrars" directly off the opening presentation and Slide 8. If people want to identify who is lined up and clamoring for this into the record, that would be fine but, so far, all this BOF has heard is "registrars"
[13:51:02] <Andrew Sullivan> Both Jim Galvin and Scott Hollenbeck are employees of registries, I will note.
[13:51:08] <Andrew Sullivan> (and identified themselves that way)
[13:51:19] <avri> @Klensin, it has been Registries talking at the mike. Or at least that is what it 'looks' like remotely. Though I agree both would have to implement at the end of the day.
[13:51:36] <Klensin> I know. And both of them are ultimately constrained by exactly what Scott was just talking about.
[13:51:43] <ray> @avri - depends on the model - thick registries like .uk hold all our own data
[13:52:00] Linlin Zhou joins the room
[13:52:08] <gshapiro> So far, I have seen DENIC, Affilias, Verisign at the mic. There may be others, but I didn't catch a company name.
[13:52:34] <Jim Galvin> .br is at the mic now
[13:52:34] <ray> I'm from .uk, but I'm not calm enough to get up and speak...
[13:52:43] <suz> Ed Lewis is Neustar.
[13:52:46] <Jim Galvin> and Google was there
[13:52:58] AK joins the room
[13:53:00] <avri> @Ray, i understand but in the new gTLD model i expect both will be holding data and responsible for responding.
[13:53:28] <ray> @avri sure, for ICANN Regulated TLDs
[13:53:32] <Francisco Arias> @avri on the new gTLD all will be tick registries (i.e., holding all the data)
[13:54:07] <Klensin> Both (one more than the other) have stood up repeatedly at ICANN and said what amounts to "we'd really love to do this, but we can't do it as an additional registry service because that is too painful and would ultimately put us at a competitive advantage unless ICANN required the new service of everyone". I actually agree with that -- the issue is very real -- but it doesn't make it wise for the IETF to develop yet another technology on the wish that it will go forward.
[13:54:12] redaka joins the room
[13:54:40] <ray> I note that the newGTLD application requests info on any "additional registry services" offers and mentions RESTful whois
[13:54:45] <ray> it doesn't mention IRIS....
[13:54:46] <avri> There is a question open about as to what the remaining responsibilities will be for registrars in a thick registry world. and in any case .com is still thin
[13:55:33] <ray> why are people with no vested interest (i.e. as consumer or producer) trying to stop this work from happening?
[13:55:39] <Jim Galvin> in gTLDs, there are 3 thin registries - COM, NET, JOBS
[13:55:51] <resnick> @jck: I've heard from at least Scott that he's willing to stand up "prototype" implementations (and I think I understand what that means). That's going further than "we can't do this without a requirement".
[13:56:21] <Klensin> Mic (above optional,): That is, however, a large fraction of the reason why IRIS failed -- not beep or other technology issues, but because we offered a lot of options and hooks and ICANN responded with paralysis by multiple-committees.
[13:56:51] <Klensin> (at least IMO, of course)
[13:57:14] josephyee joins the room
[13:57:45] <Klensin> @Pete: IIR, Verisign did a prototype implementation of IRIS too. Then... (see comments above)
[13:58:01] <resnick> I'm sorry; who is speaking?
[13:58:06] <Andrew Sullivan> Shane Kerr
[13:58:10] <Jim Galvin> shane kerr
[13:58:10] <resnick> thx
[13:58:13] <Andrew Sullivan> I think he said it, but very fast
[13:58:14] <SM> ISC
[13:58:25] <avri> @ray, becasue the politics that get involved with names, make non names people feel icky when they approach the subject. so they want to be cautious. i understand that, but the work needs to be done in any case.
[13:58:25] <resnick> Yes, it was a bit quick for my ears.
[13:58:29] <ray> and why does that matter? If we say we'll do it, why should you care what our economic model is/
[13:58:30] <ray> ??!
[13:58:51] <ray> [that wasn't @avri, that's in response to Shane]
[13:58:59] <suz> Iris may have been long enough ago that the registry services process wasn't fully developed, also....it's less of a barrier now
[13:59:24] <suz> (she says, hopefully....I do know that the process is more mature)
[14:00:22] <Klensin> @Suz I don't think the registry services model was the problem that last time either. I think it was an excuse (and I notice Scott mentioned it again today). I think the real issue as far as names is concerned is that either ICANN is going to mandate this or it isn't going to happen on a large scale.
[14:02:53] <Klensin> Sorry, Andrew, really :-(
[14:03:48] bhoeneis joins the room
[14:03:51] <wseltzer> Paralysis at ICANN? that would be an understatement
[14:04:14] <Andrew Sullivan> Nothing to be sorry about. I just like to tease you :)
[14:04:26] <Klensin> @wendy: I'm working on understatement. Probably comes before humility about opinions.
[14:07:14] <wseltzer> this random lawyer uses port 43 :)
[14:07:47] <Andrew Sullivan> you're not that random if you know we're here!
[14:10:20] john.levine leaves the room
[14:10:41] <ray> we already have severability - all we need is a baseline profile of REST, a query model each for names and numbers, and a response model for each
[14:10:41] <Hugo Salgado> +1 at Peter and Klensin. Names and numbers are very different. Not in the data objects, but in the policies, privacy protection and end consumers.
[14:11:04] <SM> ray, without any data model?
[14:11:04] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[14:11:25] <ray> (part of the response model)
[14:13:10] <resnick> @ray: Confirming - You're saying that the query models (and responses) are OK as separate deliverables?
[14:13:11] <Francisco Arias> re: the registry service question, for new gTLDs I note the following supplemental note to the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLD applicants: http://tinyurl.com/cnryppp
[14:13:43] <Francisco Arias> it says "1.2 Applicants could propose RESTFUL WHOIS as the Web-based WHOIS. For example, the service could be offered via a web form in the registry website that allows querying the service, and offers HTML as the default output. Also, the commitment to offer the service in the final standardized form agreed in the IETF (when it happens) will be considered."
[14:15:18] <ray> @pete yes, I'm happy with that. It's what we've had submitted already
[14:15:32] <ray> @pete but the baseline REST profile MUST (imho) take account of both
[14:16:05] john.levine joins the room
[14:16:06] <ray> so that the fundamental definition of how a "client" or "server" operates is common
[14:16:52] <ray> e.g. stuff like how errors are returned, and which HTTP status codes are appropriate if a rate limit is hit, and which authentication methods are used - that should all be common
[14:17:11] <ray> and shouldn't touch policy or data model
[14:17:33] <john.levine> On the list, I got pushback against common authentication methods
[14:17:33] <Jim Galvin> I agree with Ray and others regarding errors and status codes.
[14:17:35] <resnick> @ray: So, if there comes an issue (and I'm having a hard time imagining one, but humor my hypothetical for a moment) where there is disagreement between the names and numbers people about the baseline REST profile, the WG should go *poof*?
[14:18:05] <ray> @john there should be a minimum baseline IMHO (i.e. Basic auth) but with optional support for SSL client certs
[14:18:10] <SM> Good idea, Pete
[14:18:12] <Klensin> @ray: but that sounds like it contradicts what I thought I heard Pete suggesting, which is the ability to unbind the two as a management action if one lags. As far as I can tell, can't have both that capability and a requirement that both rest (sic) on the same profile and foundation.
[14:18:20] <john.levine> @ray, fine with me, but see the list archives
[14:18:27] <Jim Galvin> I'm less sanguine about authentication models which is to say I'm being open-minded thus far.
[14:19:16] <ray> @pete IMHO that is so hypothetical that we needn't try to charter around that very modest risk
[14:19:30] <Klensin> The possibility of having the WG go poof instead is exactly why I'm opposed to making names part of the initial charter (although Pete's proposal, if carefully written into text and with a clear understanding of what would cause severance, would work for me
[14:19:37] danny leaves the room
[14:19:51] john.levine leaves the room
[14:20:23] <ogudmund> Who will suffer is whois and whois like services are just truned off ?
[14:20:45] <SM> People will complain
[14:20:50] john.levine joins the room
[14:20:52] <Klensin> @mic: for the sake of an empty line, I still object to any text that binds addresses and names, at least without a clear model for blowing the bolts (even if that ends up whth abandonment of one or fundamentally different profiles)
[14:21:02] <pawal> ogudmund: a massive amount of people which we know nothing about...
[14:21:15] <avri> LEA will complain. Intellectual Property Lawyers would be lost.
[14:21:30] danny joins the room
[14:21:44] <Jim Galvin> LEA and IP are policy discussions. We're not solving their problem here. My opinion of course.
[14:21:50] <SM> And anti-abuse will be unhappy
[14:21:58] <Klensin> @ogudmund: and, in addition to Avri's comments, the chance of NTIA allowing that is, IM[nvH]O, zero.
[14:22:18] <Klensin> @Pete: yes, I think more is needed.
[14:22:45] <wseltzer> +1 to Jim
[14:23:06] <Klensin> Remember that those of us who are remote can't see the screen or know what you are looking at.
[14:23:17] <Andrew Sullivan> We're on slide 10
[14:23:26] <Andrew Sullivan> which has the links to previous charter proposals
[14:23:35] <Andrew Sullivan> see
[14:23:35] <Andrew Sullivan> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00815.html
[14:23:45] <Andrew Sullivan> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00833.html
[14:24:01] <Andrew Sullivan> also http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00476.html <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00833.html>
[14:24:07] <suz> @wseltzer: yes but if we can't identify who gets hurt without whois, it's pretty much impossible to identify requirements.
[14:24:30] <suz> thus ogud's question....regardless of the policy "why", if there's no "who", why bother?
[14:24:44] <SM> suze, people will comment publicly, it's bad PR
[14:25:33] <Andrew Sullivan> to those who can't see this
[14:25:33] <suz> @SM: the other thing I've learned about "comment publicly" in 15+ years of experience in this space is that someone will hate whatever you do or don't do.
[14:25:51] <Andrew Sullivan> the proposal is to take http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00833.html and add severability text
[14:26:12] <SM> suzanne, yes. Talk to Andy ...
[14:26:17] <Klensin> Andrew, I've got all three, and the agenda) on my very cluttered screen. It remains hard to know what Pete is pointing at, calling "the latter", etc.
[14:26:35] <Andrew Sullivan> that's what the above is: "the latter" is the link I just posted
[14:27:11] <Klensin> Thx
[14:27:13] <Andrew Sullivan> so Pete is suggesting "take Andy N's latest proposal, and add severability text"
[14:27:46] <ray> @woolf exactly - you can never make 100% of the people 100% happy
[14:28:58] Stephen Morris joins the room
[14:29:00] japi joins the room
[14:29:59] <avri> i think the effort to write the requirements is where we discover if there are separate domains.
[14:30:31] <resnick> Can I mic that avri?
[14:30:36] <avri> sure
[14:35:38] barryleiba leaves the room
[14:35:44] AK leaves the room
[14:35:45] <Klensin> Mic: I would like to be sure that we are agreed that severability has to be addressed in some specific way -- I don't much care whether it is charter or a -04 requirements doc -- but that the current #2, which mostly says to me "well, we've agreed to this, and we will all remember because it is in the archives"
[14:35:55] <Klensin> is not adequate.
[14:35:58] ogudmund leaves the room
[14:35:59] suz leaves the room
[14:36:03] =JeffH leaves the room
[14:36:05] gshapiro leaves the room
[14:36:12] <resnick> Sorry John. We adjourned.
[14:36:12] naptee leaves the room
[14:36:15] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[14:36:21] Francisco Arias leaves the room
[14:36:23] <Klensin> Well, that go cut off, but the comment remains.
[14:36:24] Hugo Salgado leaves the room
[14:36:29] japi leaves the room
[14:36:37] Stephen Morris leaves the room
[14:36:39] <ray> if we did it in the requirements doc there'd be no need to amend the charter and we could push forward the current one...
[14:36:45] <avri> thanks. this mtg was good to attend remotely.
[14:36:49] <resnick> The answer was that we will bring severability language to add to charter number 2 to the list.
[14:37:04] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[14:37:08] bje leaves the room
[14:37:09] ray leaves the room
[14:37:15] yone leaves the room
[14:37:25] <Klensin> Pete, I heard that. I also did not hear anything that counded like complete agreement to it.
[14:37:31] <resnick> I think I agree that charter #2 needs more language.
[14:37:55] <resnick> .
[14:38:08] <Klensin> textual details aside, I think we are on the same page.
[14:38:19] <Andrew Sullivan> I saw the comment, and will take it into account
[14:38:25] <Klensin> thx
[14:38:26] <Andrew Sullivan> (as though at mic)
[14:39:05] pawal leaves the room
[14:39:10] Arturo Servin Ü leaves the room
[14:39:43] <Klensin> and now off to something really non-contentious and non-religious :-(
[14:39:59] Klensin leaves the room
[14:40:05] resnick leaves the room
[14:40:11] SM leaves the room
[14:40:33] sophie.nachman joins the room
[14:41:44] josephyee leaves the room
[14:43:42] avri leaves the room
[14:45:07] danny leaves the room
[14:46:07] wseltzer leaves the room
[14:46:08] wseltzer joins the room
[14:46:56] sean.s.shen leaves the room
[14:48:07] redaka leaves the room
[14:48:07] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[14:48:36] Linlin Zhou leaves the room
[14:49:41] Linlin Zhou joins the room
[14:49:56] Linlin Zhou leaves the room
[14:51:08] sean.s.shen joins the room
[14:53:08] sophie.nachman leaves the room
[14:55:36] naptee joins the room
[14:56:04] sean.s.shen leaves the room
[14:56:07] dcrocker leaves the room
[14:59:07] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) leaves the room
[14:59:30] john.levine leaves the room
[15:00:06] danny joins the room
[15:01:10] john.levine joins the room
[15:01:49] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[15:03:31] john.levine leaves the room
[15:04:27] pawal joins the room
[15:06:14] pawal leaves the room
[15:07:53] resnick joins the room
[15:07:56] resnick leaves the room
[15:08:10] =JeffH joins the room
[15:09:07] wseltzer leaves the room
[15:09:37] bhoeneis leaves the room
[15:11:45] woolf joins the room
[15:12:58] Stephen Morris joins the room
[15:13:11] woolf leaves the room
[15:13:20] Stephen Morris leaves the room
[15:16:34] sophie.nachman joins the room
[15:17:36] dcrocker joins the room
[15:19:03] =JeffH leaves the room
[15:24:18] dcrocker leaves the room
[15:28:23] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) joins the room
[15:29:19] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) leaves the room
[15:33:19] sophie.nachman leaves the room
[15:38:40] sophie.nachman joins the room
[16:07:25] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[16:17:20] naptee leaves the room
[16:19:23] danny leaves the room
[16:20:22] sophie.nachman leaves the room
[16:20:38] sophie.nachman joins the room
[16:21:30] sophie.nachman leaves the room
[16:24:06] danny joins the room
[16:24:42] wseltzer joins the room
[16:31:16] sophie.nachman joins the room
[16:35:54] sophie.nachman leaves the room
[17:11:08] wseltzer leaves the room
[17:11:08] danny leaves the room
[17:11:09] wseltzer joins the room
[17:30:39] wseltzer leaves the room
[18:03:32] danny joins the room
[18:36:37] danny leaves the room
[19:01:04] danny joins the room
[19:32:35] danny leaves the room
[19:34:04] danny joins the room
[20:09:01] danny leaves the room
[21:49:39] cm-msk joins the room
[22:04:40] cm-msk leaves the room
[22:47:44] wseltzer joins the room
[22:58:40] wseltzer leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!