Skip to main content

Minutes for LAGER at interim-2015-lager-1
minutes-interim-2015-lager-1-1

Meeting Minutes Label Generation Rules (lager) WG
Date and time 2015-08-24 07:00
Title Minutes for LAGER at interim-2015-lager-1
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2015-08-24

minutes-interim-2015-lager-1-1
LAGER WG virtual interim
2015-08-24, 1400 UTC
Minutes taken by Paul Hoffman
        Text from the presentations not given, just the discussion
        See the slides for the full presentations
                https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/08/24/lager/proceedings.html

Blue sheet:
Asmus Freytag
Audric Schiltknecht
Barry Lieba
Francisco Arias
Jiangkang Yao
Kim Davies
Marc Blanchet
Mats Dufberg
Paul Hoffman
Peter Koch
Scott Hollenbeck
Wil Tan
Yoshiro Yoneya

Agenda was covered

draft-ietf-lager-specification, Kim Davies
        Gave overview presentation

Issues on the WG tracker, Kim Davies
        Went through each of the open issues in the WG tracker
        #2 - Mechanism to specify origin URI and refresh schedule
                Paul: Maybe just a URL, not all the data requested
                Asmus: Having a standard field would be good
                Kim: This is a link of where to fetch this file in the future
                Asmus: Not baked enough
                Marc: Put this on hold, maybe abandon
        #3 - Clarify domain element as it pertains to Root
                Kim: How is the root zone represented?
                        Already text in next draft
        #4 - Review syntax of actions
                Wil: Likes "allocatable" and "blocked"
                Asmus, Yoshiro: Ditto
                Kim: Will change in next draft
        #5 - Add text about potential effects of recursive rules
                Asmus: The draft does not intend to allow recursive definitions
                        Need to make sure that the wording does not allow that
                Paul: Add wording that say recursive is not allowed
                Asmus: OK with adding such wording
                Kim: Does this limit parser implementations?
                Asmus: Probably not
                Wil: His implementation parses entire XML, so it might be
                susceptible to recursion Asmus: Can be a corollary or a
                restatement Asmus will provide text for this issue
        #6 - Should there be a registry of dispositions?
                Paul: Don't need a registry, just have RFCs update this
                Marc: This is so specific now, and the registry will never
                change Kim: Happy to withdraw this, leave as-is Asmus: We don't
                know what additional disposition values might be Peter: This is
                preparing for versioning of protocol, not just asking for
                extensions Kim: How you act on dispositions is undefined Wil:
                Wants an registry to prevent overlap of names
                        Maybe just a namespace, but can later create a registry
                Asmus: A registry seems more germane
                        Agreement between authors of LGR documents and
                        recipients of those LGRs
                Wil: Thinks a namespace is sufficient
                Marc: Add a section on extensibility
                Paul: People don't want to registered
                Asmus: Namespace solves collision problem, but not commonality
                between extensions
                        Could live with "anything that is not prefixed with a
                        namespace must come from an updated RFC"
                Kim will digest what was said and propose new wording
                Wil: Wants us to think about how people will extend
        #7 - Was already closed
        #8 - Just a typo
        #9 - Fix domain/scope usage
                Kim: Update all the examples
        #10 - Minor, will be fixed
        #11 - Rule on when/not-when attributes
                Asmus will write language to fix this
        #12 - Error, will be fixed
        #13 - 2 syntax for ranges
                Asmus: Was noted that there were too many uses of the <char>
                element because the attributes vary
                        Rules are regular expressions, and char class can be
                        done in a similar way Thus not using char class for this
                Kim: Should we be more explicit about why we chose this?
                Asmus will add a note that says a char class is not a
                pseudo-repertoire, and will flesh this out more
        #14 - Typographical error, remove some spaces
        #15 - Clarify when/not-when use on char/range
                Asmus: This seems like a duplicate of #11
                        Focuses on range, strongly connected
                Asmus will fix with same clarification as #11
        New issue, not yet in tracker, from Asmus
                If there are a forward and reverse context, and authors like to
                conflate these This makes writing a tool that makes sure that
                an LGR is symmetric and transitive Suggests to add text: don't
                use this type of shorthand, it makes it hard on us This was
                triggered by Arabic LGR Asmus has proposed language, and will
                write into the next draft
        Marc: When the -01 is out, authors should update the tracker items

draft-schiltknecht-lgr-json, Audric Schiltknecht
        Just asking for interest from the community, not asking it to be
        adopted by the WG Wil: The conversion rules look really simple
                Looks like it is optimized for simple conversion, but this
                makes indexing more complicated
        Audric: Has some code samples to show how he processes
        Asmus: In the rules section, there are weak ordering requirement that
        items have to be defined before they are used
                So array seems reasonable for rules element
        Wil: Maybe can optimize with sub-elements
        Audric: Tried to stick to the XML for round-tripping
        Marc: Should this be a WG document?
        Paul: Please no
        Asmus: Ditto
        Marc: Let's keep this as an individual item

draft-wyk-lager-cjk-terminology, Yoshiro Yoneya
        The terminology in the main draft is confusing, so they wrote down
        their understanding Paul: Hopes that the definitions that are already
        in draft-ietf-lager-specification are not being changed Asmus: The term
        "script" is used in many ways for the root LGR
                There was a lot of misunderstanding from the panels
                The definition of "script" should be somewhere
                This definition is also the shared understanding
        Marc: Concerned about this being out of scope of IETF WG
                Not sure what we will do with this document with respect to the
                WG

Next virtual intermim meeting
        Maybe September 21
        But will depend on how the -01 document looks