X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:05:50 -0000 --001a1137f67cf983b004f2627d65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 WG Chairs here: We have our 5 documents for review. Discussion on the list has been minimal. I would guess your chairs own that since we have not been pushing folks to provide comments. The document editors probably know this but Friday, 14 February, is the last day to submit documents for the upcoming IETF. At this time we are not anxiously waiting for a revised document. We can work with what we have. If anyone is concerned about getting a change in to a document for the IETF now would be a good time to speak up. Although, in fairness to our document editors, we really don't want to burden our editors with last minute work. However, commenting on the list is always recommended. Jim and Antoin --001a1137f67cf983b004f2627d65 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

WG Chairs here:

We have our 5 documents f= or review.=C2=A0 Discussion on the list has been minimal.=C2=A0 I would gue= ss your chairs own that since we have not been pushing folks to provide com= ments.

The document editors probably know this but Friday, 14= February, is the last day to submit documents for the upcoming IETF.=C2=A0= At this time we are not anxiously waiting for a revised document.=C2=A0 We= can work with what we have.

If anyone is concerned about getting a change in to a document fo= r the IETF now would be a good time to speak up.=C2=A0 Although, in fairnes= s to our document editors, we really don't want to burden our editors w= ith last minute work.=C2=A0 However, commenting on the list is always recom= mended.

Jim and Antoin

--001a1137f67cf983b004f2627d65-- From nobody Fri Feb 14 11:17:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9C71A035F for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:17:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tiAujMOmo-RW for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:17:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBDF1A034C for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id pv20so9539551lab.2 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:17:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=wqTOvtxqwkOn3C9Hw2ruPZWu8AYpvc6gjgpGQ0B3evg=; b=DHyioGQ9clp/D5hSPbmeMk9G5QChfUn2Uc3MaIne2F+HdKa0KS0ftnG/A0wgGH7+xj mJ6QLmlOYxhsFbR3iwimeB9KZpBpsMgqXtA9AnXk3DCacJ2IKJ7XQMY8Qy7TInn4ySzX muDYTNtBlJ3nEoNXvJGnjEgOS2TiXr/4j7UJ/LEBXkNUSkFeIpMHEpaGrSVgYAI1wFEc 567DayWAM4KqjTo1CY/mi2lLNYBfc5s2IgLvyb52hb5jMDcTZo/dPD+PMjx2vPuP8Ci3 Ye2phzhiugDz5W4IkEqDuB86r1122YM9QJT5QNDOjpXZBdiYSAh4chBDqNvnpU17qYwP io/w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkeGCcka/caqFOTF1fVUbBDQ/4zbw/PrgqKiNpgY4TO93cN0wVXpHv5eiOENTu7srcTnYd6 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.88.233 with SMTP id bj9mr6335358lbb.10.1392405430811; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.17.7 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:17:10 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [68.49.97.93] Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:17:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: James Galvin To: eppext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c36ad41650a104f262a73e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/J-AZY3kseHaoHPjZMfYlloGszbA Subject: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: EPPEXT List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:17:23 -0000 --001a11c36ad41650a104f262a73e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 WG Chairs here: The deadline for submitting our agenda for the next IETF meeting is Monday, 17 February. Antoin did ask for suggested agenda items several weeks ago. No one asked for anything specific so we'd like to propose the following agenda. First, if you haven't noticed, we got the 5pm-6:30pm slot on Thursday evening for our meeting. We believe our primary document is draft-ietf-eppext-reg, which is being edited by Scott. We would like to focus most of our discussion on that document, and also ask that Scott include his question about "designated expert" he posted to the list recently. We'll then give a smaller but equal amount of time to each of the other documents. The most important goal of these discussions is either to identify questions that we need to bring to the list to resolve or to decide the document is ready to publish. Of course, we can and should start this process now since we don't have to wait for the meeting to speak up. If there is time left we could allow ourselves a discussion of Patrik Walstrom's document to see if there's interest for it being an important topic/document for our group to discuss. With that, we believe our agenda looks like this. - Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.) - AOB Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda? Thanks! Jim and Antoin --001a11c36ad41650a104f262a73e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

WG Chairs here:

The deadline for submitting our agenda for the next IETF meeting is Monday= , 17 February.=C2=A0 Antoin did ask for suggested agenda items several week= s ago.=C2=A0 No one asked for anything specific so we'd like to propose= the following agenda.

First, if you haven't noticed, we got the 5pm-6:30pm slot on = Thursday evening for our meeting.

We believe our primary docum= ent is draft-ietf-eppext-reg, which is being edited by Scott.=C2=A0 We woul= d like to focus most of our discussion on that document, and also ask that = Scott include his question about "designated expert" he posted to= the list recently.

We'll then give a smaller but equal amount of time to each of= the other documents.

The most important goal of these discuss= ions is either to identify questions that we need to bring to the list to r= esolve or to decide the document is ready to publish.=C2=A0 Of course, we c= an and should start this process now since we don't have to wait for th= e meeting to speak up.

If there is time left we could allow ourselves a discussion of Pa= trik Walstrom's document to see if there's interest for it being an= important topic/document for our group to discuss.

With that, = we believe our agenda looks like this.

- Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.)

- AOB

Any questions, comments, or other sugges= tions for the agenda?

Thanks!

Jim and Antoin

--001a11c36ad41650a104f262a73e-- From nobody Mon Feb 24 13:33:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2171A0272 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:33:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4cYOpJfQAA54 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF241A0277 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:33:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1393277592; x=1424813592; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sIG8Vy+7/mRafugk8kCDhYTow9oiYtYqSeHZ43z38yE=; b=a+KEmLcVkkFLjtWaYnwzMrMyuRI5RXi1LJ7CXevC49Z9Dq62B9rwCytM zscY2FGCpQXhG5vEYTibbire5E88DxqeRg7zCYbtrQ31/Rqph7Isl6kvh NVHX0OtjA5dGzZkcunT22ei7JS1OYJ1gW+7hoz+kQ+G0IJ1JlZ/W0XE1f Y=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7359"; a="59727500" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2014 13:33:12 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,536,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="599124686" Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 24 Feb 2014 13:33:12 -0800 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:33:11 -0800 Message-ID: <530BBA96.1050100@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:33:10 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Galvin References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/ZnF0JUfBejpkVnZkG7JViQnKy-Y Cc: eppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: EPPEXT List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:33:15 -0000 On 2/14/14 1:17 PM, James Galvin wrote: > - Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.) > - draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.) > - draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.) > - draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.) > - draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.) > - draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.) > - AOB > > Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda? Folks, Sorry for piping up late. Just a quick comment on this: 10 minutes per draft is a *very* short amount of time to discuss anything, and near impossible if you attempt to do anything that looks like a "presentation". I would strongly suggest that the document editors or chairs post an issues list for each of the documents to the mailing list (possibly with an explanation of the issues if it's not clear), and then in the room just have a single slide per document with the list of issues. That will leave all of the time for discussion, not wasting it with the editors explaining what the issues are. I'd suggest posting those messages to the list *this week*, or drop the document from the agenda. No need to be spending time in the room trying to bring everybody up to speed. There's simply not enough time to do that. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Tue Feb 25 09:56:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05011A016D for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JP2Zg3_lTECf for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748BF1A013C for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id pv20so7383916lab.2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=B7yYFKfUuRU7Ug/iBKiuWmydcoM5J87vrZrqXfhGg9w=; b=PaEr871rkUVJw5lwr6El5Xif0gUUAcYJLPApU+mGCQOxs9zpzgAqs4Bqy3PqDdHgBI NQC3zimvsi6TVgSlwG39n4gtWwz348iktlEi1Z62Gv/hoJ/KY5m/osD7sSrsdeJDsix2 naUrV4C968qx7kU8x7fpO5v+4CsPP1keNJPH9oZByP68FsQfbg3hUT9re7j0liwdmIU4 VPC8/o21oNU3KDmj5ObIK3Zt+aGSXT3Fk0F64EmbJ1gaWUAPRBn7hYjfnUC2QN8fW/+j GI6dinbv+Rvo3oit8wdUP5y6miGpvbdRZXeR47yZIJ5Z6QvIdeC0C20bbsTICX0Mhced hpgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKZt8ZI1MEXqXipBV1qDEyi6tFhcJxr2PJXpvc+hVeg8zDG5PgPpmnx+wGYjYSblugY9of MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.43.47 with SMTP id t15mr692046lal.38.1393350998647; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.17.7 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:38 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [67.52.140.5] In-Reply-To: <530BBA96.1050100@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <530BBA96.1050100@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:56:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: James Galvin To: Pete Resnick Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c241005271bf04f33ecf5d Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/9hXGO3vgwJmE2wUv7lnMiDByaLg Cc: eppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: EPPEXT List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:56:44 -0000 --001a11c241005271bf04f33ecf5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Pete, Thanks for emphasizing this point. The chairs have separately requested all the document authors to prepare a single slide with the questions to be reviewed. They should presume that their document has been read. What we did not do was suggest that the list of questions will be collected and distributed to the list in advance. Thanks for this and we will certainly do it. Document authors, consider yourself so tasked. Please send your notes to the list, by COB everywhere Friday, 28 February. The chairs will collect these and create an appropriate slide deck for the working group meeting. Thanks, Jim On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 2/14/14 1:17 PM, James Galvin wrote: > >> - Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.) >> - AOB >> >> Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda? >> > > Folks, > > Sorry for piping up late. Just a quick comment on this: > > 10 minutes per draft is a *very* short amount of time to discuss anything, > and near impossible if you attempt to do anything that looks like a > "presentation". I would strongly suggest that the document editors or > chairs post an issues list for each of the documents to the mailing list > (possibly with an explanation of the issues if it's not clear), and then in > the room just have a single slide per document with the list of issues. > That will leave all of the time for discussion, not wasting it with the > editors explaining what the issues are. > > I'd suggest posting those messages to the list *this week*, or drop the > document from the agenda. No need to be spending time in the room trying to > bring everybody up to speed. There's simply not enough time to do that. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > --001a11c241005271bf04f33ecf5d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pete,

Thanks for emphasizing this po= int.

The chairs have separately requested all the document aut= hors to prepare a single slide with the questions to be reviewed.=C2=A0 The= y should presume that their document has been read.

What we did not do was suggest that the list of questions will be= collected and distributed to the list in advance.=C2=A0 Thanks for this an= d we will certainly do it.

Document authors, consider yourself= so tasked.=C2=A0 Please send your notes to the list, by COB everywhere Fri= day, 28 February.=C2=A0 The chairs will collect these and create an appropr= iate slide deck for the working group meeting.

Thanks,

Jim

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

On 2/14/14 1:17 PM, James Ga= lvin wrote:

- Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.)
- draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.)
- AOB

Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda?

Folks,

Sorry for piping up late. Just a quick comment on this:

10 minutes per draft is a *very* short amount of time to discuss anything, = and near impossible if you attempt to do anything that looks like a "p= resentation". I would strongly suggest that the document editors or ch= airs post an issues list for each of the documents to the mailing list (pos= sibly with an explanation of the issues if it's not clear), and then in= the room just have a single slide per document with the list of issues. Th= at will leave all of the time for discussion, not wasting it with the edito= rs explaining what the issues are.

I'd suggest posting those messages to the list *this week*, or drop the= document from the agenda. No need to be spending time in the room trying t= o bring everybody up to speed. There's simply not enough time to do tha= t.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

--001a11c241005271bf04f33ecf5d-- From nobody Thu Feb 27 08:01:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9A81A0377 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:01:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRaLPggclvMY for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og102.obsmtp.com (exprod6og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF131A035B for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob102.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUw9hVFYgE0teWQ4m28c2usHck2/U78td@postini.com; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:01:27 PST Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id s1RG1N22002646 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:01:23 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:01:23 -0500 From: "Gould, James" To: Pete Resnick , James Galvin Thread-Topic: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London Thread-Index: AQHPKblm1vPgHfrm0U2kdIFoEEpaQprFUGUAgAQGawA= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:01:22 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <530BBA96.1050100@qti.qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/ryyK1mU3W1-K1bpkA2i6YBlaOmk Cc: "eppext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: EPPEXT List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:01:31 -0000 Pete, I=B9m not going to be at the meeting in person, but I=B9ll participate remotely. Gavin Brown will present the open issue(s) with draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase at the meeting. Below I provide my implementation status / experience with both draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase and draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd. Jim Gould has been a co-author of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase for the past year and a half and has provided input into draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd since its inception. He has developed an implementation that includes full support for all of the features of both drafts on the client side and the server side in the open source Launch EPP SDK and the Verisign EPP SDK (http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-registry-product s/epp-sdks/index.xhtml?loc=3Den_US). Client-side support is provided by an API as well as a set of client tests. Server-side support is provided by a server framework and a set of stubbed out logic to support the client=B9s tests in an included stub server. Verisign has two independently-built servers that implement both drafts in two Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) environments, where one supports just launch registrations and the second supports both launch registrations and launch applications on a per TLD basis. The experience gained in implementing the SDKs and the servers has been incorporated into the drafts. =20 --=20 =20 JG =20 =20 James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com =20 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 2/24/14, 4:33 PM, "Pete Resnick" wrote: >On 2/14/14 1:17 PM, James Galvin wrote: >> - Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.) >> - draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.) >> - AOB >> >> Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda? > >Folks, > >Sorry for piping up late. Just a quick comment on this: > >10 minutes per draft is a *very* short amount of time to discuss >anything, and near impossible if you attempt to do anything that looks >like a "presentation". I would strongly suggest that the document >editors or chairs post an issues list for each of the documents to the >mailing list (possibly with an explanation of the issues if it's not >clear), and then in the room just have a single slide per document with >the list of issues. That will leave all of the time for discussion, not >wasting it with the editors explaining what the issues are. > >I'd suggest posting those messages to the list *this week*, or drop the >document from the agenda. No need to be spending time in the room trying >to bring everybody up to speed. There's simply not enough time to do that. > >pr > >--=20 >Pete Resnick >Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > >_______________________________________________ >EppExt mailing list >EppExt@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext From nobody Thu Feb 27 13:33:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7530E1A03A3 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:33:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goWX-WQ0zXKk for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og109.obsmtp.com (exprod6og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AB01A0156 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob109.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUw+vDG6WxmY8twIp32mA1sdU8BL7/QVi@postini.com; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:33:02 PST Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id s1RLWx4s012757 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:32:59 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:32:59 -0500 From: "Gould, James" To: Pete Resnick , James Galvin Thread-Topic: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London Thread-Index: AQHPKblm1vPgHfrm0U2kdIFoEEpaQprFUGUAgARjEoA= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:32:58 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <530BBA96.1050100@qti.qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF35185B586F4jgouldverisigncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/8eKz_F4ZD2JmGZfphTmrtjMr3LA Cc: "eppext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [eppext] Draft Agenda for IETF London X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: EPPEXT List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:33:07 -0000 --_000_CF35185B586F4jgouldverisigncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pete, We are aware of only one open issue with draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase base= d on an open item with the referenced draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec that has = been discussed but not concluded on the ICANN tmch-tech mailing list ( see = http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tmch-tech/2014-February/001000.html ). The= requirements in draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec helps drive the protocol requi= rements of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. Currently draft-ietf-eppext-laun= chphase fully supports the Trademark Claims Period flow defined in section = 5.3.1 and the supporting language of section 5.3.2 of draft-lozano-tmch-fun= c-spec. Interpretation of the language of the fourth paragraph of section = 5.3.2 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec provides support for a yet to be defin= ed model that has been referred to as the "asynchronous acknowledgement ver= ification model=94. There are three options for draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec, where the third option most likely will have i= mpacts on draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. 1. Tighten the language in the fourth paragraph of section 5.3.2 of draf= t-lozano-tmch-func-spec to only support the Trademark Claims Period flow de= fined in section 5.3.1 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec. The update would be= changing "the minimum set of checks MAY be performed when creating the int= ermediate object=85=94 to "the minimum set of checks MUST be performed when= creating the intermediate object=85=94. No change would be required in dr= aft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. 2. Leave both draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and draft-ietf-eppext-launchph= ase as is and leave it up to the servers to define the flow and protocol fo= r supporting an "asynchronous acknowledgement verification model=94. 3. Updated draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec to explicitly define the "asynch= ronous acknowledgement verification model=94. A new Trademark Claims Perio= d flow would be added similar to Figure 7 in section 5.3.1 of draft-lozano-= tmch-func-spec along with supporting text. The new flow most likely will r= equire updates to draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. Changes discussed on the = list include: * A flag in the domain create response indicating the asynchronous a= cknowledgement verification model is supported and that the submission of t= he claims acknowledgement may be required. * Add a new State (e.g. pendingAcknowledgement) in draft-ietf-eppext= -launchphase with an associated poll message. The claimKey could be includ= ed in the poll message to forgo the need for the client to submit the claim= s check after receiving the poll message. An action date (acDate) element = may be required to define the date and time that a claims acknowledgement m= ust be received. If the claims acknowledgement is not received by the acti= on date, the application will be auto-rejected. * Extend the domain update command to allow for the passing of the c= laims acknowledgement () that if received by the action date= will transition the application to the allocated state. The draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase authors recommendation is option 1. One = Registry Operator posted on the tmch-tech list that they intend to support = some form of "asynchronous acknowledgement verification model=94, but no de= tail was provided on how they intend to support it and no requests were mad= e to update draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. Option 2 will encourage new cus= tom EPP extensions and flows that are impactful to the clients. Option 3 w= ill require formal discussion of the "asynchronous acknowledgement verifica= tion model=94, will require changes to both draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and= draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase, and still might not match custom implementa= tions that have been created based on the existing language in section 5.3.= 2 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec. -- JG James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 2/24/14, 4:33 PM, "Pete Resnick" > wrote: On 2/14/14 1:17 PM, James Galvin wrote: - Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.) - draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.) - AOB Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda? Folks, Sorry for piping up late. Just a quick comment on this: 10 minutes per draft is a *very* short amount of time to discuss anything, and near impossible if you attempt to do anything that looks like a "presentation". I would strongly suggest that the document editors or chairs post an issues list for each of the documents to the mailing list (possibly with an explanation of the issues if it's not clear), and then in the room just have a single slide per document with the list of issues. That will leave all of the time for discussion, not wasting it with the editors explaining what the issues are. I'd suggest posting those messages to the list *this week*, or drop the document from the agenda. No need to be spending time in the room trying to bring everybody up to speed. There's simply not enough time to do that. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 _______________________________________________ EppExt mailing list EppExt@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext --_000_CF35185B586F4jgouldverisigncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pete,

We are aware of only one open issue with draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase= based on an open item with the referenced draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec that= has been discussed but not concluded on the ICANN tmch-tech mailing list (= see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tmch-tech/2014-February/001000.h= tml ). The requirements in draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec helps drive t= he protocol requirements of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. Currently = draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase fully supports the Trademark Claims Period fl= ow defined in section 5.3.1 and the supporting language of section 5.3.2 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec. Interpreta= tion of the language of the fourth paragraph of section 5.3.2 of draft-loza= no-tmch-func-spec provides support for a yet to be defined model that has b= een referred to as the "asynchronous acknowledgement verification model=94. There are three options for&n= bsp;

draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec, where the third option most likely will h= ave impacts on draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase.

Tighten the language in the fourth pa= ragraph of section 5.3.2 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec to only suppor= t the Trademark Claims Period flow defined in section 5.3.1 of draft-l= ozano-tmch-func-spec. The update would be changing "the minimum set of checks MAY be performed when creating the= intermediate object=85=94 to "the minimum set of checks MUST be = performed when creating the intermediate object=85=94. No c= hange would be required in draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase.
Updated dra= ft-lozano-tmch-func-spec to explicitly define the
"asynchronous acknowledgement verificat= ion model=94. A new Trademark Claims Period flow would be added simil= ar to Figure 7 in section 5.3.1 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec along w= ith supporting text. The new flow most likely will require updates to= draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. Changes discussed on the list in= clude:
1. A flag in the domain create response indicating the asynchronous acknow= ledgement verification model is supported and that the submission of the cl= aims acknowledgement may be required.
2. Add a new State (e.g. = pendingAcknowledgement) in draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase with an assoc= iated poll message. The claimKey could be included in the poll messag= e to forgo the need for the client to submit the claims check after receivi= ng the poll message. An action date (acDate) element may be required to define the date a= nd time that a claims acknowledgement must be received. If the claims= acknowledgement is not received by the action date, the application will b= e auto-rejected.
3. Extend the domain update command to allow f= or the passing of the claims acknowledgement (<launch:notice>) that i= f received by the action date will transition the application to the alloca= ted state.

The draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase authors recommendation is option 1. = One Registry Operator posted on the tmch-tech list that they intend t= o support some form of "asynchronous acknowledgement verification mode= l=94, but no detail was provided on how they intend to support it and no requests were made to update draft-ietf-eppext= -launchphase. Option 2 will encourage new custom EPP extensions and f= lows that are impactful to the clients. Option 3 will require formal = discussion of the "asynchronous acknowledgement verification model=94, will require changes to both draft-lozano-tmch-func= -spec and draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase, and still might not match custom i= mplementations that have been created based on the existing language in sec= tion 5.3.2 of draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec.

James Gould

Principal Software Engineer

jgould@verisign.com

703-948-3271 (Office)

12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com

On 2/24/1= 4, 4:33 PM, "Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

On 2/14/14 1:17 PM, James Galvin wrote:

- Welcome and charter (Jim/Antoin 10 min.)

- draft-ietf-eppext-reg (Scott 30 min.)

- draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay (Miek 10 min.)

- draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase (James/Wil/Gavin 10 min.)

- draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd (Gutavo 10 min.)

- draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap (Francisco/Luis Enrique 10 min.)

- AOB

Any questions, comments, or other suggestions for the agenda?

Folks,

Sorry for piping up late. Just a quick comment on this:

10 minutes per draft is a *very* short amount of time to discuss
anything, and near impossible if you attempt to do anything that looks=

like a "presentation". I would strongly suggest that the doc= ument

editors or chairs post an issues list for each of the documents to the=

mailing list (possibly with an explanation of the issues if it's not <= /div>
clear), and then in the room just have a single slide per document wit= h

the list of issues. That will leave all of the time for discussion, no= t

wasting it with the editors explaining what the issues are.

I'd suggest posting those messages to the list *this week*, or drop th= e

document from the agenda. No need to be spending time in the room tryi= ng

to bring everybody up to speed. There's simply not enough time to do t= hat.

pr

--

Pete Resnick<http://= www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

_______________________________________________

EppExt mailing list

EppExt@ietf.org

https://www.i= etf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

--_000_CF35185B586F4jgouldverisigncom_-- From nobody Fri Feb 28 04:09:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6921A0057 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:09:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C6sCNEWP3YZ0 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5193A1A019D for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id u57so462803wes.25 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:09:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=pxhJ7q+uS4qpWFDTPPDxtemWMIJ5eqBoGuoh7pQb34w=; b=gOSLswjzcd7PWd6yvzzMysmIM/paPhuTxIVqbMP/mLVjXI6Wd7OOPCkOUs3N/1NHO1 NE27ydcgG6yFCFoGlr+JW+xOXGhMqIygrLFd2opHAziuq1BhTTydYrs55uRvmLCniU7Q LVI4W39pKIC3s3H0uDuZBnR9m2mx2qJwYZcrI14cMFCdUlpblr+0/AFRbLtdCoyF/Tga mz8JkX6E1aaq4KFOJ1Esilgqms8SOybiCJ9gQ9J3D9D2u5/j0pCm6V5UJaTOccip7mKd G2USiaImrUG9M2gF1yWomwET3Um1OOX3I0aTFC7z7LMgBMizxaj9r/Wk7a8Q1EvcQRS7 kw1A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTe5HfS9nWprorw0dbcoqNsh2cPILDy+doOck5XN98oseCBmbB/an2ad0RAjBP8b+l4xxR X-Received: by 10.181.11.169 with SMTP id ej9mr3042337wid.18.1393589354852; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:09:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from miek.nl ([2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:e74c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fs4sm4450410wib.11.2014.02.28.04.09.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:09:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:09:12 +0000 From: Miek Gieben To: EPP Extensions WG Message-ID: <20140228120912.GA14831@miek.nl> Mail-Followup-To: EPP Extensions WG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Vim/Mutt/Linux X-Home: http://www.miek.nl Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/Ro0pnZ3eusLgFvCA2z2vtRePeCQ Subject: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-00 outstanding issues X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: EPPEXT List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:09:19 -0000 Hello, I'm sending this message in preperation of the EPPEXT meeting next week. I'm listing solved and outstanding issues with the draft: * We have running code, both in the .NL registry and registrars that have tested the procedure and have given feedback. * One of the items was that the loosing registrar MUST ack or nack the willingness to put the new keys in the zone. There is a two day timeout, during which there is no indication if anything happening. We think it will not help if we put a "MUST ack/nack" in the draft, as the loosing registrar might still ignore this. I.e. it complicates the spec, while not adding a real benefit. * Appendix A of the draft lists the issues that have already been incorperated in the spec: In short, we, the authors, think the draft is in a good shape and are aiming for WGLC in the near future. /Miek -- Miek Gieben