Minutes IETF110: regext
minutes-110-regext-00

Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT)
IETF 110 online

Co-chairs: Jim Galvin, Antoin Verschuren
Mailing list: regext@ietf.org
Notes: Alex Mayrhofer

Tuesday, March 9, 2020 16:00-18:00 UTC, Meetecho
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/?group=regext&short=&item=1

Welcome and Introductions (4 minutes)

    i. Jabber scribe
    ii. Notes scribe
    iii. NOTE WELL
    iv. Document management
    v. Special attention document shepherds

Published (1 minute)

    Registry Data Escrow Specification
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8909/

    Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters for Result
    Sorting and Paging https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8977/

    Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8982/

    Status of existing work in Progress (RFC Editor, IESG, AD evaluation) (5
    minutes)

    Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping (RFC Editor)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping/

Publication imminent

    7482bis and 7483bis (RFC Editor)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis/
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis/

    Upgrade to Full Internet Standard imminent, probably mid April. 7484 has
    some errata, but will move along with the others.

    NOTE: RFC’s 7480 and 7481 Will also be elevated to Full Internet Standard
    without errata:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rdap-to-internet-standard/

    EPP Secure Authorization Information for Transfer (IESG review, new version
    submitted)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer/

    EPP Unhandled Namespaces (RFC editor)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces/

Existing work. (10 minutes)

i. Registry Maintenance Notifications for EPP (Sattler/Carney/Kolker?)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/
Was taken back from WGLC for too narrow consensus. No presentation for this
meeting.

    Jim is document shepherd, will look into that issue. Haven’t figured out
    what to propose to the WG. Antoin: Should get support before we advance it.

    Jody Kolker: Have been working with Jim Gould on this, feel we have
    addressed all concerns (except version number).

    Antoin: We need support from non-authors during the WGLC for calling out
    concensus.

    Jim Gould: Thanks to the authors, they have addressed my feedback.

    Antoin: If others read it, we can advance to 2nd WGLC

ii. Simple Registration Reporting (Joseph Yee/James Galvin?)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting/

    Jim: will take it to the mailing list to get feedback

iii.Federated Authentication for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
using OpenID Connect
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid/

    Antoin: Waiting for decisions within ICANN to see whether we need changes
    here.

    Scott Hollenbeck: Private comment from Tom Harrison received, therefore at
    least one edit to make.

    Antoin: Takes time/slot in WG

    Alex Mayrhoifer: Have written an RDAP server that uses Bearer Token, will
    review doc in relation to this.

iv. Using JSContact in RDAP JSON Responses (Mario Loffredo/Gavin Brown?)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation/

    Mario Loffredo: We're waiting for the WG adoption to move doc forward. Will
    provide an update for next meeting.

Existing work presentations. (40 minutes)

i. RDAP Reverse search capabilities (Mario Loffredo, 20 minutes)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-regext-5i-mario-loffredo-draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-00

    Mario Loffredo presenting
    says a fully GDPR compatible reverse search implementation is possible
    PII in Request URLs - better use POST, but not considered in RDAP

Comments:

    Jim Reid: What would be the purpose of a legal person to review the doc? Is
    the IETF in that position - sanity check OK, but would be problematic to go
    beyond that point. Especially considering registries are in different
    legislations.

    Mario: nobody in the WG has a legal background. Sees requirements from
    legal perspectives. Lot of discussion is about privacy concerns.

    Antoin: Doc is very far along, we only want to get the Privacy
    Considerations Section done.

    Marc Blanchet: GDPR is only one, governments will do it “their own way”.
    Going to be a rathole. Otherwise won’t ever finish that discussion.

    Antoin: agree, but this document is the first where we aggregate data.

    Ulrich Wisser: Impressed by Mario’s work on this. All that Mario has found
    out should be documented in the Privacy section, and implementors can go to
    their local lawyers - Thank you Mario!

    Barry Leiba: Highlighting what Jim Reid said: We take comments from whoever
    comments, have they a legal background or not. But actively seeking legal
    feedback is probably not within the scope of IETF. Keep “legal review” out
    of this.

    Jim Galvin: (individual!) Doc stalled because of the privacy consideration.
    Focusing more on the technical side: Concerned about the “directionality”
    (as in “reverse search”) - prefers the document as “expanding” search.
    Also, maybe remove text about specific elements - should be extensible.
    Will raise those questions on the mailing list.

    Rich Wilhelm: Fit to registry/registrar model? registrars are authoritative
    for the data - opportunity to simplify document?

    Antoin: Difference between thin/thick registries. RDAP is also for RIR's
    and other registries without registrars, not just IACNN domain registries
    model.

    Jim Reid: Mario did great job at enumerating issues. We need to draw a line
    under it at some point “this is the knowledge of the WG at this point in
    time - if you need more, consult your local lawyers” - and avoid the
    ratholing.

    Antoin: If there’s consensus on the mailing list, we can proceed!

    Scott Hollenbeck: If some searches have same properties as some in 7482,
    “reverse” is more about relationship searches - and relationships might not
    be exposed. distinction is maybe important.

ii. Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service (Marc Blanchet,
20 Minutes)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/
    Slides:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-regext-5ii-marc-blanchet-draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-00

    Marc Blanchet presenting, describes the individual errata.

    Please send implementation reports to Marc!

    Alex: Simple enough, please go ahead with the doc as proposed!

New work and requests for adoption presentations (20 minutes)

i. Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP protocol (Dmitry Belyavsky,
20 Minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai/ Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-regext-6i-dmitry-belyavsky-epp-eai-profile-00

    Dmitry presenting.
    Asks for the document to be accepted as WG item.
    Ulrich: Thinks that the placeholder is problematic.
    Alex: Appreciates that no extension is proposed anymore. For the pure
    namespace registration, registration would probably be possible without
    RFC. James Gould: This is a new form of extension that “overrides” existing
    element. Placeholder text is the biggest issue for the WG. Antoin: Please
    send a formal request to chairs for adoption, chairs will send out poll.

Milestones review (5 minutes)

    Scott: in ICANN RDAP pilot work, there were OpenID implementations trialed.

(EAI document not yet added, will be done if adopted)

AOB

    Barry handing over working group to Murray as the new responsible AD. Thank
    you very much Barry!! Alex: Some non-policy / non-controversial topics
    could be handled faster/quicker, also focuse subgroups work well. Jim
    Galvin: Takeaway: make milestones more visible, we rarely did that, but now
    we got a lots of docs out of the door.

Meeting concludes at 17:49 UTC