Minutes interim-2017-regext-01: Tue 13:00
minutes-interim-2017-regext-01-201707111300-00

REGEXT Interim Working Group Meeting
11 July 2017

We discussed the current Fee draft document (draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05).
 
In attendance was Thomas Corte, Jody Kolker, Antoin Verschuren, Alex
Mayrhofer, James Galvin, Scott Hollenbeck, Joe Snitker, and Roger
Carney.
 
We started by confirming that the current revision of the document
(v5) addressed all currently known issues (except the <fee:command>
“minOccurs” issue that Thomas raised on the list two weeks ago, which
will be addressed in next revision).
 
We moved on to discussing any new issues/concerns, three items were
raised:

1. First of which relates to section 3.8 and specifically what
happens when a client does not provide a phase/subphase. We spent the
majority of the meeting, roughly 45 minutes, discussing this
item. Initial comments were that this functionality seemed to be an
over reach for this document. Originally Alex thought that a
compromise might be that we change the “should”s in paragraph 2 and 4
to “MAY”s. The group talked this through and said that was possible
but generally it was still thought to be over reaching. The group
concluded that the best approach maybe to:

a. move this phase/subphase listing functionality out of this document
and into the draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase document;

b. remove paragraph 2 and 4 of section 3.8;

c. add text to section 3.8 to handle clients not passing in
phase/subphase:

i.  where there is only one active phase/subphase server MUST return
phase/subphase and appropriate fees,

ii.  where there is no active phase/subphase server MUST return a
reason that there is no active phase at this time,

iii.  where there is more than one active phase/subphase server MUST
return a 2003 "Required parameter missing" error

2. Scott mentioned that we need to add a normative reference to the
draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase document as we refer to it in 3.8. This
is planned for the next revision.

3. Lastly we touched on the subject of the <fee:cd> “avail”
attribute. James poised the question of value versus complexity. Do
members of the WG understand the purpose of the <cd:fee> “avail”
attribute? Do we need more text in the document to help explain
intent? Do we gain enough value by introducing another level of
availability?

Additionally, we talked about including support in
draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase to get a list of phases for a TLD and a
list of current active phases. Scott was going to bring this up to
James Gould as well (Gould was one of the authors of the launch phase
document).
 
We would like to get WG thoughts and comments on any and all of these
items so that we can gain a rough consensus and get closure of these
items.
 
Next week in Prague, at the REGEXT meeting Tuesday at 13:30 local
time, I will provide an update on how the interim meeting went and on
the draft. The plan is to get rough consensus on the changes needed
for the next revision of the Fee document, and shortly after IETF-99
produce revision 6 and look to go to WG last call.
 
If anyone has any additional thoughts on these topics or new topics
for the Fee document please let us know.
 
Thanks to all of you that participated, it was a very productive
meeting. I look forward to seeing most of you next week.