[05:51:46] --- otmar has joined
[06:07:23] --- otmar has left: Replaced by new connection
[08:07:46] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[08:09:38] --- pascal_Hennequin has left
[08:22:57] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[08:27:11] --- pascal_Hennequin has left: Logged out
[08:28:31] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[08:32:54] --- pascal_Hennequin has left: Logged out
[08:35:35] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[08:41:14] --- pascal_Hennequin has left: Logged out
[08:41:24] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[08:45:14] --- AndyGallant has joined
[08:45:27] --- AndyGallant has left
[09:05:46] --- pascal_Hennequin has left
[09:15:39] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[09:49:46] --- AndyGallant has joined
[09:56:29] --- msj has joined
[09:59:20] --- mark.stripes has joined
[10:00:47] <AndyGallant> any sign of audio yet?
[10:03:22] <mark.stripes> yeah - ietf654.mp3 is working for me
[10:03:25] <AndyGallant> ... audio has begun
[10:07:19] <msj> Anyone have a URL for the tool PAF is talking about?
[10:07:33] --- mcfadden has joined
[10:08:42] <mcfadden> http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/
[10:08:50] <mcfadden> I think that is the tool he is talking about....
[10:08:50] <msj> thanks
[10:09:29] <msj> sorry - meant the actual location where the tickets are submitted/reviewed...
[10:09:39] <mcfadden> Sorry. No, I don't have that one.
[10:09:45] <msj> tnx
[10:10:24] --- bhoeneis has joined
[10:11:36] <bhoeneis> The secretary asked me to act as a Jabber scribe...;-)
[10:12:07] <bhoeneis> So I'll do my best to catch the dicsussion. Feel free to add, correct me and stuff...
[10:12:39] <bhoeneis> Lawrence Conroy presenting the Implementation experiences draft
[10:14:00] --- LOGGING STARTED
[10:14:56] --- ogud has joined
[10:16:19] --- ogud has left
[10:18:07] --- yone has joined
[10:18:34] --- sbrim has joined
[10:19:32] --- ogud has joined
[10:22:44] --- AndyGallant has joined
[10:23:24] --- bhoeneis has joined
[10:25:20] --- fujiwara has joined
[10:25:56] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-8.ppt (Lawrences presentation about experices draft)
[10:26:15] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-4.ppt
[10:26:28] <bhoeneis> This is the draft currently discussed
[10:26:48] <bhoeneis> Questions:
[10:26:54] --- Stripes has joined
[10:27:23] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[10:27:37] <bhoeneis> 1 – Should a sub-type always be specified? 2 – Should there be a separate registration for each sub-type? 3 – Should there be a separate sub-type for each URI scheme? 4 – Should there by any statement on the use of non-terminal NA
[10:28:02] <bhoeneis> Richard Statsni: How non terminal NAPTR are used in ENUM?
[10:28:24] <bhoeneis> has to be clarified before defined how to be registered
[10:29:11] <bhoeneis> Rich Shockey: Non-Terminal NAPTRs implenentation guide?
[10:30:10] <bhoeneis> Lawence Conroy: having a seperate flag in DDDS and a seperate registration process
[10:30:23] <bhoeneis> this is not in scope of the document discussed right now
[10:30:36] --- wouter has joined
[10:31:04] <bhoeneis> Richard Statsni: Agrees with the first 3 points
[10:31:58] <bhoeneis> conclusion: 1) yes / 2) yes / 3) yes / 4) no
[10:32:04] <bhoeneis> ?
[10:32:38] <bhoeneis> no formal conclusion however....:-)
[10:32:42] --- fujiwara has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:33:05] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-6.ppt
[10:33:18] --- pascal_Hennequin has left: Logged out
[10:33:20] <bhoeneis> CNAM
[10:33:35] --- wouter has left
[10:33:42] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[10:33:49] <bhoeneis> Which way to go here?
[10:34:10] <bhoeneis> Adapt as a WG item?
[10:34:43] --- pk has joined
[10:34:48] --- mcfadden has joined
[10:35:23] --- fujiwara has joined
[10:35:30] <bhoeneis> discussions about charset
[10:36:03] <bhoeneis> PAF: Proposes Wording about this in security considerations
[10:36:29] --- pascal_Hennequin has left: Logged out
[10:37:26] <mcfadden> What are the equivalents in the UK and at ETSI?
[10:38:32] <bhoeneis> Rich asks again to adapt as WG item
[10:38:38] <bhoeneis> hum asys yes
[10:38:49] <bhoeneis> s/asys/says/
[10:39:12] <bhoeneis> Rich: tel vs. data
[10:39:42] <bhoeneis> Lawrences
[10:39:55] <bhoeneis> says tel
[10:41:54] --- pascal_Hennequin has joined
[10:41:54] --- fujiwara has left
[10:42:04] <bhoeneis> Rich: One or the other but not both?
[10:42:31] <bhoeneis> Jon: Wants No conflicting stuff with SIP From Header field
[10:42:59] --- dcrocker has joined
[10:45:16] <bhoeneis> Rich: Does not want to define two URI for the same thing
[10:45:48] <bhoeneis> LC: there is mapping between tel and sip URL
[10:45:50] --- otmarlendl has joined
[10:46:08] <bhoeneis> CNAME is kind of likely to be network provided
[10:46:44] --- otmarlendl has left: Logged out
[10:46:57] <pk> s/CNAME/cnam/
[10:47:05] --- pascal_Hennequin has left: Logged out
[10:47:31] --- otmar has joined
[10:47:54] <bhoeneis> JP: A data URI would not appear in the SIP request
[10:51:16] <bhoeneis> Rich: Use Case is: The terminating proxy uses CNAME in absence of user supplied data
[10:54:20] <bhoeneis> no consensus about this issue (yet(
[10:54:52] --- mcfadden has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:54:52] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-7.pdf
[10:54:52] <bhoeneis> IAX service registration
[10:55:02] <bhoeneis> changes:
[10:55:03] --- jr111 has joined
[10:55:11] <bhoeneis> iax2 subtype:
[10:55:31] --- mcfadden has joined
[10:55:40] <bhoeneis> ...
[10:55:58] <bhoeneis> URI paasword removd
[10:56:06] <bhoeneis> second @ replaced
[10:56:24] <bhoeneis> by ?
[10:57:11] <bhoeneis> Next steps:
[10:57:16] <bhoeneis> IESG review
[10:57:30] <bhoeneis> submit URI Registration Request using new template
[10:57:48] <bhoeneis> PAF: Go ahead with URI registartion thing
[10:58:48] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-2.ppt
[10:58:52] <bhoeneis> Axel Mayrhofer about Domain keys
[10:59:43] --- msj has joined
[11:00:25] <bhoeneis> just idea, not fully elaborated
[11:00:37] <bhoeneis> identity transactions using phone number
[11:01:41] <bhoeneis> Idea: Use the identity chain established by ENUM validation to convey the E.164 identity to the internet.
[11:02:02] --- pascal_hennequin has joined
[11:02:05] <bhoeneis> Proposal: Use parts of ENUM & Domainkeys technology ENUM, but no full DDDS (just the domain) Domainkeys, but just the key stuff/storage = TXT record with public key in ENUM ENUM domain owner = signer Any internet user = verifier
[11:02:27] <bhoeneis> TXT record is just a hack
[11:02:31] <bhoeneis> input requested
[11:02:58] <otmar> Is anybody here not listing to the audiostream?
[11:03:14] <bhoeneis> Example flow:
[11:03:14] <bhoeneis> 1 – signing the message with private key 2 – transport of mesage to destination 3 – destination identifies E.164 number, fetches public key 4 – destination verfies signature
[11:04:10] <bhoeneis> Features / why ENUM?
[11:04:16] <bhoeneis> Available to any ENUM domain holder (Note: that's the sales pitch part ;) Receiving end requires no prior knowledge about sender Any node on the internet can perform authentication Domain internationally agreed Common validation quality:
[11:05:39] <bhoeneis> Potential applications
[11:05:49] <bhoeneis> Signing in to P2P networks
[11:05:58] <bhoeneis> CLI signalling to the PSTN
[11:06:05] <bhoeneis> SPIT prevention
[11:06:47] <bhoeneis> Maybe more ?
[11:07:51] <bhoeneis> Feedback on ideas
[11:07:54] <bhoeneis> requested
[11:10:41] <bhoeneis> N.N. (security) : Is not sure about scaling, as for email it was not designed to scale to individuals
[11:11:03] <bhoeneis> N.N.: How much you want to trust DNS
[11:11:35] <bhoeneis> might be a litlle bit pre-mature
[11:11:59] <bhoeneis> AM: obviouly the key needs to be secured
[11:12:48] <bhoeneis> N.N. PKI mechanism is quite complex for this thing
[11:14:42] --- fujiwara has joined
[11:15:42] <bhoeneis> JP: SIP has done a lot of work on Identy stuff
[11:16:22] <bhoeneis> JP: There is a gap for telephone numbers, ENUM might fill this gap
[11:17:50] <AndyGallant> lost audio - response to statsny's question?
[11:18:04] <otmar> same here. audio gone
[11:18:38] <pk> response was: key in the DNS may give speed advantage
[11:20:07] --- admcd has joined
[11:20:28] --- fujiwara has left
[11:20:34] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-3.ppt
[11:20:45] <bhoeneis> FOAF Friend of a friend
[11:21:55] <pk> Kurt Reichinger, introducing himself
[11:21:55] <pk> new ENUM service FOAF
[11:22:30] <pk> FOAF == Friend of a Friend, Semantic Web Project
[11:22:31] --- admcd has left
[11:22:45] <otmar> anybody managed to get audio again?
[11:22:47] --- sbrim has left
[11:24:46] <pk> currently talking about slide 5
[11:25:17] <AndyGallant> http://130.129.16.247:8000/ietf654.mp3
[11:25:45] <pk> page 7: FOAF <-> E.164
[11:26:30] <pk> Q: how to query if i do not have a phone number?
[11:27:00] <pk> A: there are spiders looking for FOAF data; start with one FOAF data file, look for "knows also" tags
[11:27:01] <otmar> Andy, thanks.
[11:28:11] --- fujiwara has joined
[11:29:26] <pk> Shockey: privacy and security: can you granuarlize the data?
[11:29:39] <pk> A: if i know the location, i can read ALL the data therein
[11:29:44] --- fujiwara has left
[11:30:01] <pk> Shockey: sounds like a "Super vCard"
[11:30:42] <pk> Carsten Schiefner: data protection [slide 10]: not only my data but also other people's data is affected. Do those people (have to) agree to the publication?
[11:31:12] --- bhoeneis has left
[11:31:19] <pk> A: Semantic Web Research Project, privacy no issue at the moment
[11:31:31] --- pascal_hennequin has left
[11:31:37] <pk> Andy Newton: what apps do read this FOAF file?
[11:32:12] --- msj has left
[11:32:16] <pk> A: could use it for poular social networking systems; don't think there are such systems querying right now
[11:33:09] <pk> Mayrhofer: storing of privacy data in ENUM services; should not talk about the privacy of the data _behind_ the service we are referring to; pls add to the enumservice guidelines draft that we're not gonna do that
[11:33:44] <pk> Shockey: yes, just pointing to a data object
[11:34:19] <pk> Mayrhofer: should only talk about privacy in security considerations of a particular ENUm service, not about those implications that arise from the service pointed to
[11:35:09] <pk> Shockey: clearly experimental since there's no W3C standard yet
[11:35:24] --- bhoeneis has joined
[11:36:04] <pk> [mike]: register services for which service has analyzed privacy/security implications
[11:36:33] <pk> [mike]: what kind of stuff do we want to put into enum in general? making phone number a more generalized identifier?
[11:37:22] <pk> Olaf Kolkman: why is the phone number the lookup key for this servcie?
[11:37:38] <pk> A: why not?
[11:37:59] <pk> Shockey: E164 numbers have always been keys to a communication contact
[11:39:49] <pk> paf: new to FOAF; nervous about just because there's no generic identifier in FOAF you use the phone number; should research what the generic identifier for FOAF is
[11:40:30] <pk> Conroy: paraphrasing paf: looking at UR*N* kind of system
[11:40:43] <pk> paf: persistent, unique identifier (cf IRIS)
[11:42:17] <pk> Conroy: ENUM is not URN but URI
[11:42:17] <pk> Shockey: so, what to do with the document?
[11:42:32] <pk> Conroy: we have "x-", that's what it's for
[11:42:34] --- pascal_hennequin has joined
[11:43:38] <pk> chairs: x- or web/http/https?
[11:44:58] --- pascal_hennequin has left
[11:46:16] <pk> Jon Peterson: this is a job for the registration guidelines document
[11:46:16] <pk> JP: how many of these services do we need to register? expect the guidelines to answer this
[11:46:16] <pk> Reichinger: started with web, got back http URL; didn't know where to find FOAF file, might have been the root or some directory; needed educated guesses; therefore created dedicated enum service telling exactly where FOAF file resides
[11:46:16] <pk> Andy Newton: need FOAF specific data/service
[11:46:22] --- xiaodong.lee has joined
[11:46:46] <pk> [mike]: locating FOAF file is semantic web problem ...
[11:47:27] <pk> [mike]: suggest do nothing in the wg with this
[11:48:38] <pk> Richard Stastny: name of the field is enum _service_ , not enum _protocol_; should be able to point to different services; see no problem for registration of this particular service
[11:49:15] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-5.ppt
[11:49:34] <bhoeneis> Rohan Mahy about IM and Calandar enumservices
[11:53:11] <bhoeneis> Hum in favour of adapt as WG item
[11:53:13] <pk> Conroy: wonder what the use is; but then, it's a short draft, so fine
[11:53:13] <pk> Shockey: asks for hum for adoption: pro: some; con: silence
[11:53:43] <pk> [that was actually for the IM enumservice]
[11:54:05] --- dcrocker has left
[11:54:13] <pk> now: iCal enumservice
[11:55:05] <pk> there are multiple calendaring services: iMIP, CalDAV: zero, one or more enumservices?
[11:55:27] <pk> Mayrhofer: chance to merge this with vCard?
[11:56:38] <pk> [mike]: also include lists of events, e.g. if IETF had phone numerb, also list the IETF's agenda?
[11:57:13] <pk> Mahy: semantics of the ietf meetings calendar ... [lost]
[11:57:14] --- frodek has joined
[11:58:31] <pk> Willi Wimmreuter: do we think we can maintain or market every other feature?
[12:02:05] <bhoeneis> Stronger hum to adapt calander enumservice as WG item
[12:02:06] --- jr111 has left
[12:02:21] --- jr111 has joined
[12:02:26] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-1.ppt
[12:02:44] <bhoeneis> Carrier/Infrastructure ENUM Requirements
[12:03:01] <bhoeneis> by Penn Pfauz
[12:04:17] <pk> Shockey: is this wg doc, pls hum: result indeterminate
[12:04:44] <pk> Infrastructure ENUM requirements
[12:05:23] <pk> Conroy: 'SHALL' support IRIS might be problematic in the UK
[12:06:13] <bhoeneis> (sorry about the disorder of posts due to local network problems.)
[12:08:06] --- jr111 has left: Replaced by new connection
[12:10:05] <pk> discussion about the suupport of IRIS/whois
[12:10:15] <pk> is the doc ready for WGLC?
[12:10:20] <pk> no opposition
[12:10:31] <bhoeneis> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/enum-0.ppt
[12:10:50] <bhoeneis> Combined User and Carrier ENUM in the e164.arpa tree
[12:11:08] <bhoeneis> by Richard Stastny
[12:11:41] --- jr111 has joined
[12:20:24] <bhoeneis> Rich Shockey: Doesn't like BLR
[12:20:45] <bhoeneis> Issue is between IESG and RIPR (not IAB and RIPE)
[12:21:24] <bhoeneis> PAF: Swedisch regulator will bring up this issue to ITU anyways
[12:21:38] <otmar> my audio seems to be lagging by a few minutes
[12:21:56] <bhoeneis> (Mike) No TXT please, define new Record
[12:22:18] <AndyGallant> otmar, the main audio link has been working for time
[12:22:34] <AndyGallant> ... for some time
[12:22:45] <otmar> andy, yeah, I switched back some time ago
[12:22:56] <bhoeneis> Rich Shockey: ITU will be involved anyhow, no matter way we choose
[12:23:21] <bhoeneis> PAF: ITU involvement is not a criteria for choosing the solution
[12:23:50] --- Louie has joined
[12:24:09] <Louie> yo. hey mark. louie lee here
[12:24:32] <bhoeneis> Rich: First RFC, then the process can be started with IAB and stuff
[12:24:50] <bhoeneis> Stastny: What do we do until then?
[12:25:49] <bhoeneis> Rich: Do it as experiment
[12:26:23] <bhoeneis> Axel Mayrhofer: TXT is fine, not new record
[12:26:45] <bhoeneis> Rich: Other draft to implement the requirements
[12:27:31] <bhoeneis> PAF: We seem to have a disgreement, is it due to missing requiments in the req. doc?
[12:27:40] --- juampe-bt has joined
[12:27:53] <bhoeneis> e.g. knowlegde about length of the CC is a MUST
[12:30:03] <bhoeneis> (Mike) TXT record bas idea, design new record (label the information)
[12:30:11] <bhoeneis> s/bas/bad/
[12:31:12] <bhoeneis> Penn: Question is what are the alternatives until opion 1 is finalized
[12:31:28] <bhoeneis> alternaive is that carrier will pick just some domain
[12:31:52] <bhoeneis> the will do it one way or the other
[12:32:11] <bhoeneis> might not be better alternative compared to BLR
[12:33:02] <bhoeneis> Stastny: WG item?
[12:33:10] <bhoeneis> Shockey: No!
[12:35:08] <bhoeneis> Haberler: Can we anyway take a hum?
[12:35:23] <bhoeneis> Shockey: no
[12:35:39] <bhoeneis> Conroy: I don't like it
[12:36:04] <bhoeneis> two things:
[12:36:05] <bhoeneis> 1) not use TXT record, use BLR
[12:37:32] <bhoeneis> hum on: Who believes that BLR are a viable option for I-ENUN now or in future?
[12:38:17] <Louie> "chair's perogative?"
[12:39:04] <bhoeneis> unclear result, but probably stronger for: It is a viable option
[12:39:56] <bhoeneis> PAF: We are over time
[12:40:49] <bhoeneis> Peter Koch: Concerns about number of ENUMservices and Packet size in DNS
[12:41:27] <bhoeneis> encorage people to have a close look at that, which NAPTRs make sense
[12:42:09] --- ogud has left
[12:42:12] <bhoeneis> meeting closed
[12:42:21] --- xiaodong.lee has left
[12:42:41] --- yone has left
[12:45:06] --- Stripes has left
[12:45:17] --- jr111 has left
[12:47:19] --- Louie has left
[12:47:23] --- juampe-bt has left
[12:49:32] --- otmar has left
[12:58:53] --- mcfadden has left
[12:58:58] --- AndyGallant has left
[12:59:30] --- LOGGING STARTED
[13:03:30] --- LOGGING STARTED
[13:11:38] --- dcrocker has joined
[13:30:02] --- dcrocker has left
[14:09:18] --- ogud has joined
[14:14:11] --- dcrocker has joined
[14:19:00] --- ft has joined
[14:19:14] --- ft has left
[14:57:57] --- dcrocker has left
[15:08:36] --- dcrocker has joined
[16:01:27] --- dcrocker has left
[16:02:27] --- ogud has left
[16:11:48] --- ogud has joined
[16:25:55] --- ogud has left
[16:34:33] --- bhoeneis has joined
[16:34:37] --- bhoeneis has left
[17:05:48] --- dcrocker has joined
[17:57:36] --- dcrocker has left
[18:27:38] --- xiaodong.lee has joined
[18:27:42] --- xiaodong.lee has left
[18:54:49] --- dcrocker has joined
[19:28:54] --- dcrocker has left
[19:57:49] --- dcrocker has joined
[19:59:04] --- dcrocker has left