Subject: [ietf-provreg] proto-agenda

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:03:58 -0500

Based on what I've seen on the list:

1) Getting to the bottom of the privacy issue - the one in front of 
us, that is.

2) Alternate transports

3) IDN in EPP

Does anyone still want to discuss a problem with ROID?

Here are action items I recorded in December:

1. Respond to the IESG comments.

Most of the comments are easily addressed.  A few need further
discussion (and are listed as separate action items).

2. Come to a final understanding of UDP and EPP.

There have been some words posted to the "outlawing" of UDP, one
response was to require stream based protocols.

3. Clarify the adoption of P3P concepts.

P3P was written for website environments, not a business to business
situation.  This is reflected in some of our examples and needs to be
cleaned up.

Rick Wesson volunteered to summarize a discussion on privacy issues.
It might be up to us to forge new ground here as we are one of the
few protocols that gathers personal information (for registration
information).

4. Whether or not we adopt a work item for the SOAP 'as transport' draft.

A thread has been started on the list, but the results are luke warm for now.

5. An SMTP mapping is all but dead in the water.

Unless someone objects on the mail list, we're dropping all
milestones relating to SMTP.

6. Continue to progress on Guidelines.

No sense of urgency, at least not until we get #1 above done.

Two other action items...

7. Clean up the milestones.

After the meeting we talked and decided that the milestones on the
web page aren't sufficiently descriptive.  Before fixing them, #4 and
#5 need answers.

8. Discuss 'lastVerified' - mandatory, extension or optional

9. Discuss handling of external hosts

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:43:01 -0500

> 2) Alternate transports

Does this item need to be included?

I just ran through the list, and the last talk of this seems to be in 
December, which might be summarized as: 1) a new draft was promised 
before Christmas (the current one expires this month), and 2) several 
people agreeing that it should be experimental.

-andy

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:13:16 -0500

[non-attendee comments on proposed agenda.]

> 3. Clarify the adoption of P3P concepts.

Pointing out a specific defect in the <dcp> element's sub-schema would be
really useful.

> milestones relating to SMTP.

I object.

> 8. Discuss 'lastVerified' - mandatory, extension or optional

I think this is a bad idea sneaking in from some other policy area.
I could be mistaken.

> 9. Discuss handling of external hosts

That should be interesting.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:18:19 -0500

Discussing alternate transports in in our charter:

"The group will consider support for multiple operational choices, 
such as for transport..."

So far, no transport other than TCP has sparked widespread interest. 
One person  is touting SMTP, a few others expressed support for SOAP 
a few months ago.  It doesn't appear that there's an alternative to 
TCP that is on the verge of being added as a WG item, but we are 
chartered to explore the possibility.

Note too that the list of which this is a part is not an agenda list, 
but the remaining unresolved items from last time.  If no one has any 
material to discuss in SF, then alternate transports won't appear on 
the agenda.

At 18:43 -0500 3/6/03, Andrew Newton wrote:
>I just ran through the list, and the last talk of this seems to be 
>in December, which might be summarized as: 1) a new draft was 
>promised before Christmas (the current one expires this month), and 
>2) several people agreeing that it should be experimental.
>
>-andy

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:44:44 -0500

Ed,

There has been a note to the list about an implementation over HTTP.
All things considered, -56 time available, and proximity of -57 venue
to the implementor, that may be the better time to do other-than-tcp.

Eric

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:07:57 -0500

I see no rush to define another transport, but keep these 'realities' in mind:

There is the expectation that this WG may stick around until we get 
to DS.  That means that we may remain active in spite of resolving 
the IESG comment, getting PS documents and not spending time on 
issues that have flared up and then seemed to go away (ROID).

In that case, discussing alt. transports at -57 might not be a bad idea.

However, 1) no one can promise we will still be active then and 2) 
starting a discussion on the mail list at any time is preferable for 
waiting to start a discussion at  an in-face meeting.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:22:47 -0500

> issues that have flared up and then seemed to go away (ROID).

Understood. HTTP WG hung until Moore and Freed screwed around with
Dave Krystol's state management mechanism draft. Too similar to the
current wrangle for comfort.

> waiting to start a discussion at  an in-face meeting.

Of course.