Last Modified: 2003-05-12
| Oct 02 | Submit requirements document as an Informational RFC | |
| Nov 02 | Submit first draft of protocol (use) specification | |
| Nov 02 | Submit first draft of domain registration administrative directory services required schema element specification. | |
| Apr 03 | Submit revised protocol (use) specification document as Proposed Standard | |
| Apr 03 | Submit revised draft of domain registration administrative directory services required schema element specification as Proposed Standard. |
s.Crisp WG - IETF 57 - July 16 2003 - Vienna CHAIRS: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> April Marine <april.marine@nominum.com> SCRIBE: David Knight <dknight@ripe.net(edited for length by April) - Agenda Bashing Ned (sheparding AD) is on a leave, John Klensin will stand in George Michaelson: Cathy Murphy should make a contribution. Cathy Murphy: In the AOB - IESG Feedback on Requirements ID (10 Minutes) Document was sent, there was some feedback regarding privacy issues. Concern raised by security ADs: no mechanism in the protocol for someone who had priviliged access to see what was priviliged and what was not. Protocol requirements should include something that allowed for this kind of distinguishment. Group discussed, especially experiences from PROVREG group. Andy Newton, requirements doc editor, said he could send proposed text to address this to the list for review. - FIRS Matrix Compliance (35 Minutes) Peter Gietz DAASI Peter presented the requirements, with comments indicating where the requirement might not have been clear. FIRS met all requirements, but it emerged that LDAP would actually need extensions written to handle some of them. These extensions are not yet specified, and so the FIRS work would have to include that specification. Along the way, in discussion of 3.2.2.1 re IDNs, Patrick noted the following regarding a change from the UNICODE Consortium: Patrik Folstrom: If the client is using UNICODE 4 and the request is normalised you will not get a match. The errors that the unicode consortium is creating can only increase in size. They have changed their definition of what stable means. Hope that the IAB can present a document on this issue. You don't know today what codepoints will be problematic in future. The IDN docs don't talk about this. We thought stable meant something else. Storing things directly in the normalised string is soemthing we should think about. The conclusion is that the IETF is using Unicode in the wrong context of what we thought. - IRIS Matrix Compliance: Ed Lewis, Scott Hollenbeck: Ed: Started reading in March, couldn't grasp all the requirements. Points out some requirements that were confusing. Were there any NOs? Ed: yes, in regard to relay bags Scott: Presented slides covering the messages sent to the mailing list and discussed his issues with the matrix in general. - Next Steps and Milestones Ted: In San Francisco we spoke about next steps. Agreed we would first evaluate protocol requirements, if we have a winner then we stop processing and move on. Sounds like there needs to be one change in the doc, to describe how that particular function is done, meaning what LDAP extensions that may be required to implement FIRS. Second step is to look at service requiremets. This is harder than the protcol requirements, we need more justification for each of the responses on the service side. We need volunteers who are willing to write fairly comprehensively, do we have someone willing to do this for FIRS? Is there anyone willing to do this for the IRIS side? No volunteers came forward at this point. Some discussion of other ways to proceed, including putting up test implementations of the protocols. However, Ted points out that that is a lot of work and expense to go to just to avoid writing. John Klensin points out that if we don't decide something soon, some other group will move forward along their own path and we'll have lost the opportunity. A straw poll of those present showed a strong majority of those expressing an opinion in favor of IRIS. The group agreed, then, on the following next steps; - the FIRS LDAP extensions doc would be written, completing the specificaions for both protocol choices - a 3 week discussion period on the list would take place, starting at the time the last doc was available - at the end of that 3 weeks, a call for consensus on the protocol to be recommended would take place. - AOB Cathy Murphy: A new requirements draft is being coordinated amongst the RIRS, this is for resource number space, ASNs IPs, this is in final review, the draft itself will be on the table before Minneapolis. ?: Will you be asking for charter revision? Cathy: Probably If you want to float it first for review that would be ok. |