[registrars] Minn provreg meeting notes (fwd)
notes from the prov-reg working group which met today.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:55:09 -0500
From: Scott Rose <email@example.com>
Subject: Minn provreg meeting notes
Here's the first draft of the meeting minutes from the PROVREG WG.
Please send any corrections/comments to me. If none, the minutes will
be submitted to the meeting proceedings.
Gov't in action ;-)
Provreg Meeting minutes
1. WG status (Ed Lewis)
- Core Documents: In IESG process in various stages
- Other documents - no discussion
- 1 Unsolicited individual submission
- Next target: move core drafts to draft standard as per RFC 2026
1. Patrik F: We need 2 independent client and 2 servers to test
(all must work together)
2. Last Call Comments on EPP drafts (Scott Hollenbeck)
- Requirements Draft:
1. WG last call completed
2. Comments by IESG in Feb, completed in Feb.
3. Waiting IESG
- EPP core drafts
1. Last call ends 29 March - few comments for additions or corrections
Patrik: IESG or AD has not received any more comments than those
mentioned in the meeting.
3. In-process documents
- BEEP - new revision available in the future.
1. Comment: Is anyone planning any implementation on this draft?
- Container draft - will not be continued.
- SMTP draft - Still being worked on (rumor). Some interest in seeing
this as a draft.
- Push feature draft - missing description document. No one has
responsibility for that draft. If Push feature is desired, please
individual submission draft.
4. Implementations (about 5 )
- RTK (Sourceforge project) release Java version of registry tool
1. Different releases for different levels of EPP(draft revisions) -
restructuring releases into one package
- Nominum: .au registry release.
1. Adding different extensions than listed in draft
2. first country code to use EPP
1. Non-core effort (smaller domains) using EPP for registry
2. When EPP reaches RFC status, .com/net/org will go to EPP
3. Registry (Verisign) will not hold customer information/contact.
That will still
reside at the registrar level.
4. All RRP based registration systems will eventually migrate to EPP
once contract expires
- .sg registry
1. assumed that one status for domain name
- NIC Mexico:
1. looking at rolling EPP out. But using other means to authenticate
5. Registry-specific extensions (H. Liu)
- .us TLD implementation for public review
- Informational - may not be WG draft, but informational as an
extension to EPP. Test to
see if EPP really is extensible and still remain interpretational.
- Differences from draft specs:
1. Collect NEXUS info for usTLD registration
2. 2 new parameters: AppPurpose and NexusCatagory
- Alternatives: Name-value pairs or new XML schema definition
1. Where scheme modified? ContactObject extension field
6. Scott H. draft on EPP and DNSSEC/ENUM an individual submission, but
remain independent submission (not DNSEXT) and hoped to be
included in DNSOP WG
7. Next Steps
- Need for a BCP/Informational RFC on how these extensions should
1. moved to list
- Interoperability test: of core protocol specs, not extensions.
1. When: wait until we get RFC status - winner
- No BEEP/SMTP comments
1. if we start talking about extensions - rechartering necessary?
2. Question of "status of command" request message - what it means and
the status of the draft.
- Author not present, so no formal answer available.