IETF 80 DRINKS WG MEETING MINUTES ================================= IETF 80 - Prague, Czech Republic DATE : Mar 31, 2011 (Thursday) TIME : 1520-1620 PLACE: Karlin I Personnel ========= WG Chairs: - Alexander Mayrhofer - Sumanth Channabasappa -- in attendance Area Directors: - Gonzalo Camarillo - Robert Sparks Mailing List - Address: drinks@ietf.org - To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks - Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/ Jabber Chat: - Room Address: xmpp:drinks@jabber.ietf.org - Logs: http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/drinks/ - Jabber Scribe: Daniel Burnett Note takers: - Manjul Maharishi, Syed Ali (Edits by: Sumanth) Meeting Notes ======= ===== 0/ Welcome and Administrivia - The WG chair in attendance (Sumanth) displayed the note-well, and distributed blue sheets - Volunteers were requested for notes and two volunteered (Manjul and Syed) - We had one Jabber scribe (Daniel Burnett) - There was one late addition to the agenda (shared on the WG before the meeting) -- an update regarding the open source implementation > There were no objections to discussing this topic 1/ WG status review Presenter: Sumanth (as the WG chair) - Updates since Beijing > Weekly design team meetings continued; and the notes regularly posted on the reflector > Most of the updates since the last meeting have been made to the Protocol docs - Three revisions for the protocol document > There is an update to transport document from the author (Ken C.) > The use cases doc underwent a minor revision, given it completed WGLC earlier, unless there are further comments, we will request publication. 2/ Protocol document - status, open issues, discussion Link : http://tools.ietf.org/wg/drinks/draft-ietf-drinks-spprov/ Presenter: Ken Cartwright (on behalf of the authors) Main Highlights - 3 revisions since Beijing, based on mailing list feedback; thanks to Otmar Lendl, Mickael Marrache, Samuel Melloul, Manjul Maharishi, et. al. - Changes were made to the Open numbering plan so that it is matter of policy on Registry side whether to support it or not. - XSD tweaks: > Optional IP addresses in NS Type was originally there are then removed; however, the recommendation is to keep them : Chair asked for consensus – most of the responses were in favor. > [David Schwartz]: What was the complexity that led to this change? > [Ken Cartwright]: Possibility that the data can get out of sync between Public DNS and the provisioned data. Also, a use case was missed. - Authentication considerations: > [David Schwartz]: Was Digest taken out? > [Ken Cartwright]: Yes, it is in transport doc. > [David Schwartz]: If Authentication is not there in the doc now, it should be added > [Ken Cartwright]: Will take another look to check, and will add it if is missing. > [David Schwartz]: Authorization should be Registrant to Registrant > [Ken Cartwright]: Granted that there are going to be schemes outside of protocol, route visibility/Route Offer/Acceptance will be the one to control Authorization. > [David Schwartz]: Provisioning Query for RegistrarId is not relevant. RegistrantId of Provisioner is more important; e.g., It could be a situation where multiple Registrants are being handled from the same Registrar. > [Ken Cartwright]: It is a matter of policy for the Registry. > [Dean Willis] : Do we need to define relationship between Registrar and Registrant? > [Ken Cartwright]: It is already there. > [Ken Cartwright] requested DS to review the Authorization section and suggest any changes or improvements. > This led to comment about removal of RegistrarId completely. Chair polled for any objections/thoughts on this. A hum was taken, and there was no objections to moving forward with the changes as proposed. > [Jean-Francois Mule]: Ok with proposal to remove this. We need to make sure all use cases proposed so far can still be validated. > [Ken Cartwright]: Will do that. - Poll was taken on how many people in the room have read the Protocol and Transport docs > About half-a-dozen people responded in affirmative. 3/ Transport document - status, open issues, discussion Link : http://tools.ietf.org/wg/drinks/draft-ietf-drinks-sppp-over-soap/ Presenter: Ken Cartwright (as the author) Main Highlights: - Small tweaks have been made since last update. - Found couple of sections that still need to be updated. - No comments from attendees. 4/ Open Source Implementation Presenters: Jean-Francois Mule and David Schwartz Main Highlights: = [Jean-Francois Mule] - Started an Open Source implementation effort after last IETF. Main goal is to validate the protocol, create common set of unit test cases and interop test bed. - Approach is to be truly open in this effort. Anyone is welcome to join/participate. - Start with limited scope, and see where we are by the next IETF. = [David Schwartz] - Effort was started ~3 months ago. Specific use cases have not been started yet. - Will setup Open Source Infrastructure, Legal framework around this, and review scope by next IETF. = [Jean-Francois Mule] - We are looking to hire a project lead for leading this effort. An email was sent to the DRINKS WG mailing list. From the list, - 3 resumes have been received – primarily through David Schwartz and Syed Ali. We want to find/hire someone who has time and is willing to commit to getting this done. = [David Schwartz] - We need someone who could spend few hours a week. = [Dean Willis] - How much funding is available? - [Jean-Francois] Enough to get it going. It will take 2-3 weeks of dedicated effort to kick it off. After that only 1-2 days a week might be needed. = [Sumanth] - Anyone interested should get in touch asap. 5/ Proposed Next steps Presenter: Sumanth (as the WG chair) - Use case I-D: It has been through WGLC once already. It is essentially done. - Protocol and Transport doc: Authors suggest that they are ready for WGLC. - Revised Milestones: > Publication of Use Cases and Prot Req in Apr’11 > Publication of Protocol Specification and Transport in May’11. > Consensus was taken on proceeding with revised milestones and plans. - [David Schwartz] Would there be value in publishing an Informational-Draft on lessons learnt after the Open Source implementation? > [Daryl Malas]: It will probably be ok to simply to slides instead of I-D. > [Sumanth] Presenting the lessons-learnt (in one form or another) may be useful, we can discuss as we learn from the experience 6/ Open Mic =[David Schwartz] Will we look to move forward after these milestones and re-charter? [Sumanth, as the chair] We may, let's finish the current deliverables first. = [David Schwartz] Will we want to move to “Publishing to Local Data Repositories (LDR)”, and “Registry to Registry” (Arrows 2 & 3 in the specs). There are many ways to publish data to LDRs. Already responding to many RFPs that ask for mechanism to transfer data to LDRs (such as AXFR/IXFR). [Daryl Malas] Lets add this to agenda for Quebec. [Sumanth] Good comments, will add. = [Sumanth, as the WG Chair] Need volunteers to review the documents - The following people volunteered (thanks)! > Protocol doc : Dean Willis > Transport doc: Manjul Maharishi - [Sumanth] If there are other volunteers (we need some more), please let us know!