Minutes IETF112: regext
minutes-112-regext-00

Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT)
IETF 112 online

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

Wednesday, November 10, 2021 14:30-15:30 UTC, Meetecho
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf112/?group=regext&short=&item=1

Attendance ranged around 45.

    Welcome and Introductions (4 minutes)

    i. Notes scribe
    ii. NOTE WELL
    iii. Document management

Duly noted by Jim; Rick Wilhelm as note-taker

    Published (0,16 minute)

    None

No items published since last meeting.

    Status of existing work in Progress (RFC Editor, IESG, AD evaluation) (1
    minute)

    Registry Maintenance Notifications for EPP
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/
    RFC Ed Queue

    EPP Secure Authorization Information for Transfer
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer/
    RFC Ed Queue

    Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/
    Waiting for Writeup

First two docs have been in the process since July.
Antoin noted that 7484bis is taking a little longer because it is moving to a
full Internet Standard.

No other comments/discussion.

    Existing work. (25 minutes)

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

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

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

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

v. Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP protocol (Dmitry Belyavsky)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai/

vi. Redacted Fields in the RDAP Response (Jody Kolker/Roger Carney)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-rdap-redacted/

Jim noted that there was a joint ICANN TechOps and IETF REGEXT interim meeting
on 20 Oct 2021. This helped to get better exposure to the REGEXT documents that
are WIP.

Re: simple-registration-reporting; likely ready for WGLC

Re: rdap-reverse-search – a presentation by Mario Loffredo

    New version -07
    Incorporating recent feedback
    Next steps: define likely use cases; address certain technical points; and
    add implementations Expecting next spring (e.g. March-May 2022) for
    completion

No discussion/comments

Re: rdap-openid – comments by Scott Hollenbeck

    Provided new draft to incorporate feedback from Mario
    Scott noted that he has questions out to the list regarding items
    (suggested by Mario) that need feedback because they represent a change in
    direction

Re: rdap-jscontact – a presentation by Mario

    New version 03
    Provided recommended JSContact map keys
    Next steps: ready to be submitted to IESG; other implementations underway,
    with CentralNic done and deployed soon; while other registry operators have
    indicated interest and have implementations underway (none specifically
    mentioned) Expecting next spring (e.g. March-May 2022) for completion

Topic from Jim (for group): the doc doesn’t have designated status; it was
adopted without a status (on purpose). We need to think about the implications.
Encouraged group to discuss/comment on the list

Mario offered that is is a relevant change, but not a formal change.

Scott offered that JSContact is not something that would update the existing
standards. This would define an optional extension. If the server claims to
support the extension, they they would operate in this way.

Murray offered thanks that the Implementation Status section has been updated
and asked who else is planning to do this?

Mario didn’t have specifics about implementations, but offered that it is a
possible consequence that there could be a full transition over time; but that
might not happen

Marc Blanchet said that he intends to implement JSContact in clients he
maintains. Offered that JCard is “difficult” to maintain and looked forward to
server implementations.

Eduardo Alvarez (in chat) stated that ICANN is currently monitoring the draft
to add support to the ICANN RDAP web client.

Re: epp-eai – Dmitry unable to attend

    Gould offered that it’s ready for WGLC

Re: rdap-redacted – Jody Kolker offered comments

    Various updates based on feedback
    Next steps: should search be added to the draft? Has been examined and
    assessed

Gustavo asked have you thought about publishing a new draft for search, and
publish this one only for lookup? Gould offered that the level of reuse is
beneficial to having it in one draft

Mario offered that implementing redacted without search was difficult

Wilhelm offered that if we are going to do search, we should do it sooner
rather than delaying the doc

    New work and requests for adoption presentations (20 minutes)

i. DNS Data Dictionary (Steve Crocker/Heather Flanagan)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-regext-datadictionary/

Presentation from Steve

    Multiple applications use DNS registration data
    Proposing the creation of a unified, IANA-administered dictionary

Q&A:
Gould: What is the problem being solved?
Crocker: There are lists in different places: EPP, RDAP

Gould mentioned the DNRD draft which as a list of elements

Wilhelm: Not sure what problem we are trying to solve; mentioned RFC 8499;
mentioned that EPP and RDDS documents have different purposes (no response)

Gustavo: What if we come up with conflicts in the definitions?
Crocker: This isn’t the spot to try to resolve conflicts; but goal is to try to
establish clarity. Goal would be to have minimal specification, detail would be
in other documents

Antoin: What if there is a conflict?
Crocker: That’s why we need a set of experts. If there are conflicts, that’s
why we bring those to light

Marc Blanchet: In the space industry, there is a terminology registry for that
industry.

Antoin (as chair): We are all for standardizing; but the goal is for broadly
applicable standards; there was no mention of routing, addressing, etc.

Suggestion to continue discussion on the mailing list.

    AOB

No material time for AOB.

Meeting closed at 65 minutes

EOF