Minutes interim-2017-regext-02: Wed 15:00
minutes-interim-2017-regext-02-201708231500-00

Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group (REGEXT)
Meeting held 23 August 2017

Attendees: Jody Kolker, Antoin Verschuren, Alex Mayrhofer, James Galvin, Dean
Farwell, Andreas Huber and Roger Carney. Ê

We held an interim meeting this morning and discussed the current Fee draft
document (draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-06) and the Validate draft document
(draft-ietf-regext-validate-02).

Agenda:
        1       Fee
        a       Confirm Edits (scheme, section 3.8 and reference)
        b       Discuss ÒQuiet PeriodÓ: section 3.8 paragraph 5
        c       Discuss WG Last Call
        2       Validate
        a       Re-introduce
        b       Comments/Questions
        3       TLD Phase Mapping
Ê
We started the meeting by confirming that the current revision of the document
(v6) addressed all currently known issues. Ê Jim Galvin mentioned that we may
need to resolve TLD phase detection to make it easier for this draft to move
forward as detection (at least in simple form) was removed in the last draft.
We spent a few minutes on this and recalled some of the reasons given for
removal, e.g. complexity and not a true fit for this draft. We discussed the
idea of pulling this into the proposed Registry Mapping draft. We also
discussed if the authors were opposed to detection being in the Fee draft and I
confirmed that I was not completely against including but I do believe the
reasons everyone provided for not including makes sense and that it seems more
appropriate in the Registry Mapping draft. Ê We spent a good amount of time,
roughly 35 minutes focused on section 3.8 describing Phase/Subphase. Alex
mentioned that 3.8 does not clearly address the scenario of a server not
supporting phase/subphase. Alex will provide some language and we will work
into the next draft. Discussion continued on the ÒcomfortÓ idea of phase
detection: ÒShould we allow servers to provide responses with multiple
phases/subphases in the same response?Ó We generally agreed that the added
complexity and cost associated with this did not outweigh the possible benefits
and that we would stay with the v6 language around this (if client does not
supply and only one exists return the one and if multiple exist return error).
Ê No one on the call raised any concerns with the ÒQuiet PeriodÓ in section 3.8
paragraph 5. Please review and express any concerns. Ê The Chairs did indicate
that once we get general agreement on the list for the Fee draft we can move
this draft to WG last call. At this point I believe we are in a good state with
v6 plus the addition of AlexÕs suggested text on servers that may not have
phase support. Please respond to the list if you agree or disagree. Ê We moved
the discussion onto Validate and Jody provided an overview of the problem space
and the proposed solution. There was a general agreement that this proposal
sounds good and seems like a logical business issue to resolve. There was some
discussion on the possible need to be able to refine this ÒvalidateÓ down to
the exact domain name. The draft does allow for this though it was not in the
original goals. Jim and Antoin talked about this whole ÒvalidateÓ concept
possibly being larger and may need to examined in totality (e.g. with
allocation token and verification code). Do they belong together or stay
separate, should there be a ÒhigherÓ framework that pulls together the idea of
validation/verification? Ê If anyone has any additional thoughts on these
topics or new topics for these documents please let us know. Ê Again, thanks to
all that were able to participate this morning, it was a very productive
meeting.