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