EPPEXT ====== Prague, July 22 2015, 17:40 - 19:40 Antoin Verschuren and Jim Galvin open the meeting. Note Well is displayed on screen. Agenda ------ Existing documents ------------------ IDNmap - has expired because Francisco has been waiting on implementation reports. Please send implementation status statements to Francisco Obispo Scott: Has sent a comment on the document but has not seen an update yet. Will forward note again. Launchphase + TMCH document --------------------------- Gone to WGLC (until July 31st) - some comments received. Please send more comments to list. Scott: Process question for the launch phase document. Contains a URI pointing to an expired internet draft - is this normative / informative? Any process issues? Barry: How extensive is the definition that it points to? If just 1-2 sentences, copy it. If more extensive, this is going to hold up the document. Is it practical to "pull it in", no question whether this is normative or information. Jim Gould: Reference is extensive, and should not be "pulled in". Barry: Will hold up document in the RFC editor queue. Jim Galvin: Have to resurrect that expired draft? Could we bring this into this group? (Barry nods.) Will take this to the list and follow up with the author of the referenced document. Document Shepherd for the TMCH document? Jim explains the process. Ning agrees to try, Jim will help on that. Keyrelay document - Rik Ribbers ------------------------------- Problem to be solved: Change DNS operator while keeping the DNSSEC chain intact. The new DNS op has to transfer his key to the old DNS op. Describes the "channel" via registrars / registry Did a study about the transfers under .nl: average 23400 transfers per month 44% DNSSEC in zone, secure transfers is going up inline with that. Spikes show transfers that are done "insecure" by removing the key before. Process to remove keys and then transfer keeps the DNS "clean", but it makes the domain name go insecure. Status: - XML structure discussion is closed - was discussion between Rik and Jim Gould - Had a discussion with the technical registrar board TODO: update current implementation to be inline with the document. Thinks that document is ready for WGLC. Interest in a "generic" relay concept? Talk to Rik. Jim: Generic Relay would be outside for now, not EPP extension level? Rik: would be an additional "relay" command, as an EPP extension Jim: Thinks that this is ready for WGLC. Marcos Sanz: Very good document, can definitely go to WGLC. Scott: Second that, ready for WGLC. Jim Gould on Jabber: Yes, this is ready. Need to increase the deployment of DNSSEC to get traction Antoin: Implementations? Jaques Latour: Not sure how well this will be taken up by registrars; not planned for .CA. Jim Gould: Verisign will implement in toolkit. Ning: CNNIC will implement. Jim: Will make admin steps to start WGLC. Proposed new charter -------------------- Was sent to the list, some comments received. Jim: Will shorten the intro of charter. Jim explains regarding the milestones. We will create actual milestones for the document, there won't be a "meta-milestone". Rik: Suggestion to follow the process of dnsop (at least 5 reviewers before we adopt a draft)? Jim: Operational issue, not in the charter (Barry agrees) - 5 might not be the right number? Jim: Do we need the milestones immediately? Barry: some time along the process - not the moment the proposed charter is being sent. Barry: Likely approval would be september 10th, if everything received by August 13th (including milestones). Candidates for WG docs --------------------- Ning presents the work on the two reseller documents. "reseller" document - was proposed as "purveyor", but has been renamed. Received interest during the ROW meeting in Dallas. Background - there's another "level" of entities between registrar and end user. Problems: eg. in WHOIS end users see a "wrong" entity. Dimitry: Claims that Reseller is usually "billing contact". Drafts creates a specific "reseller" object, including contacts. Shows example info responses. Extends also domain/host/contact to include reseller ID and optionally name. Reseller mapping creates the "reseller" object - the other document extends the current mappings to bind reseller to. Was implemented in 2003. Supported in Net::DRI. Heard that SIDN and Nominet experienced similar requirements. Asks for WG adoption. Marcos: Haven't read the doc. Considered nesting resellers? Ning: Yes, contains "parentID". Jim Gould: Information included in WHOIS / RDAP? Francisco Arias: Would be good to have, because there's a requirement in registry/registrar WHOIS. Ulrich Wisser: Why the need for an object mapping? Why not use a "normal" contact? Jabber: "reseller" is an object that has contacts itself. Jim: reseller drafts will be included as part of the proposed new charter review to be included in the milestones as working group documents. Jim: Reviewing the remaining 8 potential documents for consideration as working group documents and included in the charter. These documents will proposed with the charter to be included as working group documents: draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration/ - Jim Gould indicated he may have a related proposal. draft-brown-epp-fees/ - Ulrich indicated he has use cases not covered by this proposal; Roger Carney indicated he may have a related proposal. draft-gould-allocation-token/ draft-gould-change-poll/ draft-gould-idn-table/ - may have some interaction with the LAGER working group These documents are currently targeted for submission to the Extensions Registry: draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping/ draft-wilcox-cira-idn-eppext/ draft-mayrhofer-eppext-servicemessage/ Notes from the discussion about the documents listed above: Alex: servicemessage was at the same time as some other "messaging" related drafts; (some comments from jabber) Yoneya: IDN-Table document: Might belong into Lager rather than here. Concerned about the relation between the two WGs. Various comments from the Jabber [18:35-18:38] Roger: Recommends the "fees" extension as a working group document. Will post another doc to the list soon. Ning: Bundling registrations is also relevant. Alex: Second Roger that the fees extension is important. Jim: We might have more than one idea regarding bundling. Ulrich: None of the fees drafts covers our use cases (together with bundling) - maybe we should discuss this. Jim: We could consider several strategies - "nod off" clear items quickly followed by more detailed work. Jim Gould: Suggestion that RDAP mapping doesn't belong to this group. Jim: Heard suggestions that there is more coming Alex: Process question - how to pregress with regards of which docs will become milestones? Jim: Will provide a list of proposed working group documents together with the charter proposal, and the list can comment on priority and schedule. Report from the Stockholm EPP workshop -------------------------------------- Ulrich (host of the Stockholm WS) (IIS): was directly after the CENTR Jamboree - 40 participants - Registrants and Registries. Antoin: Is there understanding in the industry that more harmonization is needed? Ulrich: Yes, registries understand that registrars complain. Registration Operations Workshop ----------------------------- Had two regops WS - one in Dallas was focused on EPP extensions, registered in total 18 extensions since. Scott encourages people to register their Extensions. ROW 2015-2 was on last Sunday, and focused on RDAP. Eg. one gap in RDAP is the missing status values Gustavo presented an RDAP profile for gTLDs. Fracisco: RDAP profile still in development, and not published yet. Presentation is available, though. Second week of September is the GDD summit - Session on RDAP profile might be considered for the agenda. Ulrich: Seconds Scott that process to register an extension is really easy. Single email, takes one minute. Do it.