►
From YouTube: IETF92-EPPEXT-20150327-1150
Description
EPPEXT meeting session at IETF92
2015/03/27 1150
A
C
A
Okay,
so
this
is
the
meeting
that
we're
in
I'm
going
to
hand
out
the
blue
sheets
and
Jabbar
scribe
and
minutes
taker
Alexander
volunteered
four
minutes:
do
we
have
anyone
who's
willing
to
be
a
jabber
scribe
and
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
it
up
here
so
because
I'm
going
to
be
running
that
the
just
a
couple
of
slides
here
and
west
excellent.
Thank
you.
A
A
Let
me
just
take
a
breath
here
and
now:
I'm
sitting
down,
that's
right.
It's
Friday
welcome
certainly
do
appreciate
everyone.
You
know
sticking
around
long
enough
to
be
here.
I
know
we
have
a
few
key
people
who
were
not
able
to
you
know,
stick
around
for
the
week
and
and
finish
up
here,
including
my
co-chair
Antoine
asurane.
A
A
So
we'll
take
a
quick
moment
here
and
put
the
requisite
note
well
Oh
up
here,
which
basically
just
means
that
you're
here
so
the
IETF
owns
you.
If
you
have
any
questions,
are
concerned
about
that,
there's
a
few
rfcs
that
you
should
check
and
make
sure
that
you're
comfortable
with
all
of
that.
So
well.
We've
had
one
big
success
story
here,
so
thank
you
to
everyone
and
especially
to
Scott,
he's
the
author
of
this
document
and
certainly
worked
the
process
and
pressed
us
along
to
make
this
happen.
A
A
We've
settled
on
the
idea
that
this
is
really
very
open
in
broad
registry.
The
only
requirement
is
that
a
specification
exists
and
it's
important
to
keep
in
mind
that
that
specification
doesn't
even
have
to
exist
within
the
IETF
context,
so
it
certainly
does
not
have
to
be
an
internet
draft
or
published.
As
you
know,
an
informational
RFC.
That's
not
a
requirement
here.
A
You
know
that
it
makes
sense
that
there's
no
obvious
glaring
concern
with
this
document.
The
important
thing
there
is
that
the
these
experts
are
not
in
a
position
to
reject
any
registration
in
the
registry.
I
mean
it
really
has
to
be
a
significant
concern
and
an
issue.
The
technical
experts
will
use
the
mailing
list
that
we
have.
The
EPP
extensions
mailing
list
will
be
used
for
all
of
its
discussions
and
dialogue,
so
anything
they're
doing
any
comments
that
they
make
will
be.
A
You
know
transparent
and
open
seen
by
everybody,
the
experts
may
interact
with
the
authors
and
you
know
try
to
to
make
suggestions.
You
know
to
get
the
document
or
you
know,
whatever
basis
that
they
want
to
do.
But
you
know
in
the
end,
in
general,
anything
that
comes
to
the
registry
would
ordinarily
the
biases
in
favor
of
publication
unless
there's
some
very
obvious-
and
you
know
glaring
reason
to
reject
it
and
there'll
be
some
discussion
on
the
list.
If
that
were
ever
to
be
the
case,
so
I
think
the
shoulder
is
to
say
about
that.
D
Sure
Scott
hauling
back
here,
the
other
thing
I'd
like
that-
is
that
we
are
currently
looking
at
18
extension
requests
that
were
submitted
by
Jim
Gould
from
verisign.
The
way
we're
going
to
do
this,
given
the
number
is
that
we've
assigned
to
experts
per
document
so
that
everyone,
you
know,
will
be
reviewing
six
documents.
The
experts
know
that
we've
got
about
a
two
week
window
of
opportunity
to
share
that's
before
I
Anna
will
start
asking
questions,
and
so
that's
the
process.
We're
going
to
follow
the
review
comments.
A
So
this
is
my
summary
of
each
of
these
documents,
so
I'll
just
quickly
state
what
they
are
and
then
really
would
like
to
see.
If
we
have
any
discussion
from
this
group,
if
there's
any
more
discussion
to
be
had
about
where
to
go,
the
epp,
the
key
relay
document,
is
the
one
which
has
been
getting
the
most
discussion
on
the
mailing
list,
especially
recently.
A
I
know
that
the
authors
were
asking
for
it
to
be
a
standard,
trac
document,
but
there's
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
about
whether
or
not
that
document
really
is
inappropriate
forum
for
standards
track.
Still,
some
discussion
going
on
about
the
use
of
some
of
the
burbs.
You
know
how
it
integrates
with
EPP
and
whether
it
aligns
with
what
we
understand.
You
know
the
EPP
architectural
model
to
be
and
I
think
that
those
all
have
to
be
resolved
before
the
document
goes
forward
and
I
they're
all.
Depending
on
how
that
resolves.
A
You're
right,
thank
you
for
that
Alexander
I
hadn't.
Really
I
had
not
your
eye
in
terms
of
process
and
in
terms
of
formality.
It
really
should
go
for
working
group
last
call
just
because
it's
in
this
working
group
under
this
charter
and
the
way
it
is
yeah
the
way
this
working
group
was-
was
formed
to
deal
with
these
documents.
So
if
you
wants
informational,
I
could
go
to
working
group
last
call
for
that
and
then
move
along
and
scott
is
standing
at
the
mic.
So,
yes,
scott
hall,.
D
And
back
again,
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone.
That's
the
last
note
on
the
mailing
list
from
rick
rivers.
One
of
the
authors
was
that
they
were
they
had
decided.
The
authors
had
decided
to
revise
the
approach,
that's
currently
in
the
document
that
they
were
going
to
modify
the
approach
to
use
one
the
gym
gould
had
suggested.
So
I
think
they've
already
made
the
decision
that
they're
not
interested
in
publication,
as
is
as
informational,
and
they
are
interested
in
revising
it
for
it
to
be
a
good
candidate
for
a
standards
track
document.
A
A
E
E
So
the
question
is
whether
or
not
that
requires
a
new
version
of
the
draft
and
we
have
no
problem
with
publishing
a
new
version
with
the
comma
in
there,
but
there's
one
other
item
that
was
sent
to
me
privately
was
to
include
one
additional
implementation
status
for
from
one
of
the
other
parties
that
I
could
include
in
there
if
there
is
a
need
to
republish
for
this,
but
I've
already
requested
for
working
with
glass
call.
So
the
question
is:
is:
is
it
ready
post
this
or
require
to
this.
B
A
So,
thank
you
for
that.
I
mean
I.
I.
Do
believe
that
this
document
is
is
ready
for
working
group.
Last
call
I.
Think
I
would
like
to
see
would
like
to
see
the
iteration
see
the
revision
and
get
an
05
with
that
comma
in
there
I.
I
don't
I'm
neutral
on
the
implementation
issue
and
whether
or
not
that
should
be
in
the
document
or
not.
A
E
Guess
Jim
gold-
that
was
an
action
item
from
the
last
IETF,
was
to
include
the
implementation
status
information
to
help
with
the
isg
review.
We've
gotten.
I
think
it
was
about
five
or
six
responses
from
the
list
for
that
that
we've
included
in
the
latest
version
of
the
draft.
So
the
question
is
whether
or
not
it's
necessary
to
add
yet
another
one.
A
I
guess
what
I
would
suggest
is
as
long
as
we're
going
to
read
the
document
any
way
to
put
the
comma
in
there.
You
might
as
well.
Add
it
and
put
it
there.
It's
not
a
substantive
change.
So
let's
do
that.
That
information
would
normally
be
included
with
the
when
the
document
Shepherd,
you
know,
writes
up
the
document
and
because
they
indicate
implementation
status
and
they
call
that
out
in
that
right
up,
so
you
might
as
well
be
complete.
A
A
Next,
one
is
the
tmch
SMD
time
in
hasn't
been
too
much
discussion
here.
I
think
this
is
stable
document
I
think
that
it's
ready
for
working
group
last
call
and
unless
anyone
wants
to
object,
I
suggest
that
we
simply
start
that
on
this
document,
that
as
soon
as
I
can
do
that
on
the
mailing
list,
I
don't
think
the
authors
have
asked
for
it,
but
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
declare
that.
That's
the
right
thing
to
do
at
this
point.
E
F
A
This
one
has
had
the
least
amount
of
discussion
on
our
list
and
I'm
also
struck
by
the
fact
that
the
document
currently
says
that
they're
looking
for
experimental
status,
that's
what
it
actually
says
in
the
document
itself,
so
I
mean
even,
as
speaking
is
working
group.
Chair,
I
really
don't
know
precisely
where
to
go
with
this
document
in
part,
because
of
so
little
discussion,
I
mean
I
can
make
some
suggestions
and
I
have
some
comments
from
a
process
point
of
view
about
it
being
experimental
or
not
but
like
to
see.
E
Is
Jim
Gould,
based
on
my
discussions
that
I
had
with
the
authors
of
this
draft,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
earlier
on
specifically
with
me
around
this
one
which
led
to
the
IV
end
table
draft
that
was
posted,
but
I
believe
and
I'll.
Let
the
authors
speak
to
this,
though,
that
I
believe
their
intent
was
for
it
to
go
standards
track,
although
it's
I'm
not
sure
why
it
would
call
experimental.
So.
B
That
explain
over,
I
would
suggestions
that
was
so
little
discussion
and
the
group
is
quite
small
that
we
think
about
assigning
like
546
reviewers
that
specifically
review
the
document
before
we
progress
it
regarding
experimental
or
not
I.
Don't
have
any
opinion
that.
A
Okay,
so
I
heard
two
things:
one
was
Jim
suggesting
that
he
thought
the
author's
really
wanted
standards
track.
So
maybe
this
is
just
a
an
anomalous
wrong
checkbox
when
the
document
was
submitted
or
something
and
and
that's
fine,
if
you
look
in
the
end,
the
tools
and
the
actual
document,
that's
what
it
says
is
its
intended
status.
E
Has
Jim
cool
again
actually
I
think
that
this
came
up
at
the
last
I
ETF
and
we'd
have
to
take
a
look
at
the
meeting
minutes
on
that,
because
I
believe
is
we
were
going
up
talking
about
each
one
of
these
drafts.
Each
person
was
describing
whether
or
not
what
the
intent
was
I
believe
they
had
said
that
they
wanted
to
stand
his
track.
So
it's
just
at
the
double
jack.
A
And
I
thought
I
heard
alexander,
you
were
suggesting
explicitly
getting
designated
people
to
review
it
so
that
we
know
that
we
have
some
actual
documentation
here
and
I
think
that's
a
good
thing,
especially
we
are
going
to
go
stand
to
the
track.
It
is
important
to
have
some
kind
of
discussion
on
the
list
and
at
least
some
people
to
acknowledge
that
they
want
to
support
the
document
and
move
it
forward.
A
You
know-
and
this
is
why
I
was
just
from
a
process
point
of
view
concerned.
His
chair,
I,
just
felt
like
this
document.
Hadn't
really
had
enough
discussion
in
that
regard,
so
we'll
have
to
look
to
the
list
and
see
if
we
can
get
a
few
volunteers
to
acknowledge
their
support
for
this.
This
draft
do
we
know
about
implementation,
looking
at
gym
and
he's
shaking
his
head.
No,
but.
E
Geddes
team
gold,
yeah
I,
recommend
that
they
add
an
implementation
status
section
just
like
we
did
with
the
other
graphs.
We
personally
have
not
implemented
it.
We
have
our
own
custom
extension
that
we
would
like
to
migrate
over
to
it
once
we
can
do
the
IDN
table
as
well.
A
Okay,
so
what
I'm
going
to
hear
as
an
action
here
is
two
things
we
should
reach
out
to
the
authors:
to
have
them
to
indicate
some
implementation
status
in
the
document,
so
that
that's
clear
as
we
move
the
sink
forward,
and
we
need
to
get
some
volunteers
on
the
mailing
list
to
indicate
their
support
for
this
document.
Moving
on
to
the
standards
track
and
we'll
see
if
we
can
get
I'm
just
going
to
pick
a
number
in,
say:
33
sound,
like
a
good
number
I'll
ask
for
that
on
the
list.
A
B
Alexander,
could
we
get
volunteers
right
now,
because
I
will
typically
review
it
yeah
and
if
we
get
the
five
names
right
now,
then
you
know
people
have
long
flights
back
home
and
so
like
that
previews
would
come
home
on
Monday.
Look.
A
D
Got
Hollenbeck
here
for
what
it's
worth.
If
you
are
a
designated
expert
for
reviewing
extensions,
you
should
not
even
have
to
be
asked
if
you're
going
to
be
reviewing
these
documents.
Okay,
those
that
are
on
the
standards
track-
you'll
not
be
asked
by
Anna
after
the
fact.
But
that
means
the
assumption
is
that
you
are
reviewing
them
before
they
get
to
I
Anna.
A
And
I
think
that
takes
care
of
that
will
bring
you
no
final
decisions
to
the
mailing
list,
because
we
do
have
a
couple
of
key
people
who
aren't
here,
but
I
think
we're
all
in
agreement
about
where
to
go
with
these
things.
So,
okay,
other
topics
that
I
wanted
to
open
the
door
for
that
would
be
relevant
to
this
working
group
and
talking
about
would,
of
course,
be
too.
We
had
a
registrations
operation
workshop.
A
D
Okay,
this
is
scott
Hollenbeck,
it's
a
topic.
I
know
well,
I
certainly
don't
mind
talking
to
it.
I
did
post
a
summary
of
the
workshop
to
the
reg
ops
mailing
list
and
if
any
of
you
are
not
on
that
list,
it's
probably
one
worth
getting
on
it's
red
jobs
at
NL,
net
lab
CML
right,
yes,
and
they
use
mailman.
So
if
you
just
poke
around
a
little
bit,
it
shouldn't
be
too
hard
to
find
subscription
information.
The
the
first
part
of
the
workshop
was
explicitly
focused
on
EPP
extension
activity.
D
So
I
did
an
introduction
of
the
new
registry,
the
registration
process.
You
know
what
the
role
of
the
designated
experts
are
and
then
Jim
ghoul
registered.
The
first
of
18
extensions.
You
know
to
demonstrate
that
registering
an
extension
is
as
easy
as
filling
out
an
email
template
and
shooting
it
off
to
I.
Anna.
D
D
You
know,
Oliver
has
been
banging
the
drum
about
the
role
of
DNS
hosting
providers
in
this
ecosystem,
and
so
we
gave
you
know
those
two
guys
a
little
bit
of
time
to
talk
about
the
kinds
of
things
that
they're
looking
for,
and
what
a
boil
down
to
is
that
the
current
I
can
srs
model
is
typically
a
registry
to
registrar
relationship.
As
a
hosting
provider
like
Oliver,
has
been
saying,
you
know,
I
have
to
work
through
a
registrar
to
make
changes
to
delegations
and
to
deal
with
anything
having
to
do
with.
D
You
know
my
customers
and
my
services,
and
so
he
has
been
you
know,
trying
to
see
if
there's
interest
in
Dinah's
hosting
providers
specifically
becoming
a
playing
member
of
ecosystem
that
would
have
direct
access
to
the
registries
to
do
the
things
they
need
to
do
so
we
talked
about
that
for
a
little
bit.
The
other
thing
we
talked
about
you
know
richard
barnes
from
mozilla
introduced
the
let's
encrypt
initiative
and
the
acne
protocol,
and
you
might
be
wondering
well
what
does
that
have
to
do
with
domain
names?
D
D
The
other
thing
we
spent
a
little
time
talking
about
as
well.
Do
we
want
to
continue
doing
this?
What
might
we
talk
about
next?
There
was
general
agreement
that
we
wanted
to
do.
Another
workshop
in
advance
of
the
ITF
meeting
in
Prague.
Topics
are
TBD
well,
but
it
did
seem
like
that.
There
were
two
that
seemed
kind
of
prominent
or
possible.
One
was
our
death,
the
registration
data
access
protocol
and,
if
you
haven't
been
following
the
work
of
the
weirds
working
group,
you
should
even
though,
actually
it's
been
closed,
I'm
sorry!
D
So
now
you
have
to
go
looking
for
the
work
that
they
did
do,
but
anyway,
weirds
produced
a
protocol
called
are
down
yet
another
candidate
replacement
for
who
is,
but
this
one
might
actually
have
some
traction
in
that
the
rirs
in
particular,
are
already
running
it,
and
there
are
this
contractual
language
in
the
contracts
for
the
I
can
licensed
registries
to
implement
it
and
run
it
after
certain
conditions
are
met.
It's
a
lot
lighter
weight,
a
lot
easier
to
implement
than
some
of
the
other
candidates
that
were
discussed
and
proposed
over
time.
D
A
So,
thank
you
for
that
and
and
I
you
know,
I
I
do
think
this
is
an
important
workshop
and
it
has
turned
out
it's
turning
out
to
be
pretty
successful.
We're
really
getting
you
know
the
right
people
to
come
into
this
group
and
really
talk
about
some
of
these
technical
issues,
and
you
know
we'll
be
talking
about
some
of
the
extensions
that
will
come
through
this
group
too.
So
it's
a
it's.
A
What
I
meant
here
by
topics
brought
forward
when
I
put
it
on
here
is
one
of
the
things
there
was
a
set
of
some
EPP
extensions
that
were
talked
about
very
they
do
exist
as
internet-drafts,
and
so
there's
the
possibility
that
they
might
be
interesting
documents
that
would
come
to
this
group
for
a
look
at
creating
itm
standards
so
we'll
get
to
that
on
the
next
slide.
I
want
to
I.
A
Think
just
use
this
as
a
mark
point
here
and
just
say
that
I
think
from
the
point
of
view
of
this
working
group
and
our
current
charter.
You
know
this
is
our
the
set
of
topics
that
we
just
talked
about
and
finished
and
having
gotten
to
the
end
of
the
slide
in
the
registration
workshop.
You
know,
that's
been
the
work
of
this
working
group.
A
I
think
our
future
here
is
as
in
are
under
our
current
charter
is
not
especially
long
and
fairly
short-lived
and,
in
fact,
I
would
not
expect
for
this
group
under
its
current
charter
to
meet
in
Prague.
Ideally
the
documents
that
we
have
look
like
they're,
they're,
pretty
well
under
control
and
very
close
to
being
ready.
A
couple
of
them
actually
are
really
are
right
on
track
for
working
group.
Last
call
with
you
know,
measured
in
days
here,
so
we
can
move
them
along.
So
that's
our
current
expectation.
A
A
A
Going
back
to
the
registry
and
its
existence,
that's
been
published.
I
think
that
there
is
a
singular
purpose
that
this
working
group
could
serve
or
a
recharge
diversions
working
group
could
serve
in
terms
of
its
relationship
with
the
extension
registry,
that's
out
there,
and
that
is
for
any
extension
that
seeks
to
be
an
internet
standard
and
be
published
as
a
proposed
standard
as
opposing
as
opposed
to
just
being
documented.
A
What
I
did
here
was
go
find
a
few
of
the
documents
that
have
been
talked
about.
I,
think
I
got
everything
here,
but
there's
at
least
four
I
think
they're
cursed
me
now
that
I
might
have
missed
one,
but
in
any
case
we
do
have
some
candidates
that
could
easily
be
brought
in
here.
If
these
authors
are
interested
in
doing
that
I,
there
has
already
been
some
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
about
Gavin
Brown
zpp
fees
document.
A
He
had
submitted
it
just
to
the
registry,
but
there's
been
some
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
about
making
that
standard
track
and
making
it
a
standard
and
I
see,
at
least
from
the
mailing
list,
some
agreement
among
those
participating
there
that
we'd
like
to
see
Gavin
do
that
I
have
not
talked
myself
to
Gavin
about
whether
he
would
be
willing
to
do
that
with
his
document.
He
has
not
said
anything
on
the
mailing
list,
in
particular
about
that.
It
looks
like
Jim
wants
to
come
up
and
speak
to
that
issue.
E
Yeah
I
wanted
to
bring
up.
One
thing
is
the
fact
that
the
extensions
that
are
being
registered
into
the
registry
I'm,
hoping
that
the
experts
that
are
reviewing
that
will
see
overlap
and
potential
for
coming
up
with
proposed
in
the
future
to
standardize
some
of
these.
But
with
these
specific
documents
and
Gavin
in
particular,
he
has
switched
it
to
the
track.
Beat
standards
track
in
the
last
published
version
of
the
draft
and
I
believe
that
isn't
intense.
E
E
E
A
A
We
expect
that
there's
going
to
be
some
amount
of
overlap
that
will
appear
and
I
would
expect
that
individuals,
beginning
with
the
technical
experts
who
review
these
extensions,
would
actually
propose
to
the
working
group
that
it
might
consider
examining
a
particular
technical
issue
that
it
sees
out
there.
And,
of
course
we
would
have
to
work
with
the
authors
of
these
documents
to
see
if
we
could
interest
them
into
bringing
it
to
the
working
group.
A
So
it
wouldn't
be
the
working
group
that
would
have
the
job
of
reaching
out
to
pull
work
items
in,
but
people
would
have
to
propose
that
and
bring
them
in
in
that
way
or
authors
would
elect
to
bring
them
to
the
working
group
and
it
looks
like
Wes
wants
to
channel
something
in
the
jabber
room.
That's.
F
Correct
this
is
Wes
redeker
channeling.
Why
AO
is
the
handle
winry
charter?
Dpp-4,
EVP,
x4,
bundled
name's
registration
should
be
considered.
For
example,
public
interest
registry
requested
to
implement
technical,
bundling
of
second-level
domains
for
NGO
ong.
The
basic
extensive
excuse
me,
the
basic
extensible
provisioning
protocol,
ETP
domain
name.
Mapping,
RFC
5731
provides
the
domain
name
registry
keys,
quoting
something
from
an
RFC,
provides
the
domain
name
registration
one
by
one.
It
does
not
specify
how
to
register
the
bundle
domain
names
which
are
which
share
the
same
attributes.
A
E
Ahead,
yes,
Jim
gold
with
some
of
the
extensions
that
we
just
recently
registered,
although
we
didn't
create
them
as
internet-drafts
I
think
there
will
be
some
overlap
with
some
of
these
other
drafts.
That
may
be
discussed
in
this
group
like,
for
example,
the
bundle,
and
we
have
a
related
domain
extension
that
may
be
of
interest.
So
the
question
is:
is
whether
or
not
if
some
of
these
are
informational
drafts
and
that
if
there
is
overlap
and
interest
in
working
at
a
consolidated
standard,
it
might
make
sense
of
trying
to
merge
some
of
these
together.
A
So
again,
let
me
try
to
be
specific
here
about
at
least
my
suggestion
for
how
this
process
would
work.
There's
nothing
to
prevent.
You
know
any
extension
from
being
documented
on
the
registry
and
it's
important
to
keep
that
in
mind.
There
will
be
individuals
who
will
want
to
seek
to
get
their
documents
onto
the
standards
track,
and
so
they
will
bring
them
to
this
potentially
new
working
group,
this
retarted
working
group
and
ask
to
have
them
reviewed
and
considered
on
the
standards
track
and
separate
from
that
anytime.
There
is
overlap,
that's
observed
on
the
registry.
A
Anyone
would
be
in
a
position
to
propose
to
the
working
group
that
we
should
reach
out
to
these
authors
and
see
if
we
can't
get
those
multiple
authors
and
their
multiple
documents
to
be
willing
to
come
together
to
you
know,
merge
them
and
create
a
single
documented
standard
for
doing
that.
Work.
I
mean
it's
in
all
of
our
best
interests
in
to
create
a
single
way
of
doing
things
rather
than
having
multiple
versions.
So.
E
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
like
I
believe
this
follows
up
on
that
discussion
about
the
IBN
EBP
extension.
That's
here
from
Wilcox
I,
don't
believe
the
intent
was
for
that
to
be
standards.
Track
of
my
guess
was
discussed
previously
and
if
there
is
intention
for
that
to
be
brought
up
by
the
working
group,
I
would
really
want
to
have
that
merge
in
with,
like
I,
said,
the
extension
that
we
may
have-
or
others
may
have
on
that.
So
it
might
be
that
topic
might
be
good
for
the
working
group.
C
And
Jeff,
just
only
I,
do
agree
on
for
those
that
will
be
stellar
tracks,
but
do
we
again
want
to
be
a
the
recharter
or
group
to
be
a
vehicle
for
RFC's,
informational
RFC
that
would
just
host
what
has
been
done
in
the
past
whenever,
whatever
they
might
overlap
or
not,
it
will
matter.
It
would
just
be
snapshots
of
what
some
registries
have
done
the
past
and
it
doesn't
matter
if
they
are
standout
track
or
not
they're,
just
there
as
a
snapshot
of
past
implementation.
A
B
A
So
the
only
question
really
that
I
wanted
to
ask
of
this
group
and
we'll
have
to
take
this
to
the
list.
Because
again
we
do
have
a
couple
of
key
people
who
are
missing,
but
I
think
based
on
my
private
discussions
with
a
variety
of
people.
We
have
general
agreement
about
this
and
I
know
that
we
have
the
support
of
our
ad.
A
We
wouldn't
necessarily
have
to
make
a
decision
right
now.
I,
don't
think
we
have
to
create
the
charter
with
documents
in
mind.
Right
I
mean
we,
don't
they
don't?
They
don't
have
to
be
listed
in
the
Charter
right
away.
Just
have
a
defined
scope
for
what
we're
doing
I,
say,
say
again:
I'm
sorry,
Alex
Oh,
dad
Barry
said.
Yes,
he
agreed
to
me.
B
A
Due
so
we
can
have
some
discussion
on
the
list
about
picking
documents
as
part
of
also
proposing
the
Charter
that
we're
going
to
use,
and
we
can
do
that
now
as
a
bit
of
a
transition
discussion.
One
of
the
things
which
I
did
talk
to
our
ad
about
have
not
talked
to
anyone
else
in
the
working
group
about
so
I'm
going
to
put
this
out
there
now
to
see
what
folks
think,
but
we
do
have
the
1i
there
are.
A
We
have
four
documents
in
our
working
group
right
now,
three
of
which
I
think
we're
going
to
move
along
pretty
quickly
right
away.
It's
not
clear
yet
to
me
at
least
as
working
group
chair
what
the
status
is
of
the
key
real
a
document
maybe
will
fall
into
the
fast-track
category
also
when
the
revision
comes
out,
and
so
that
would
be
good.
But
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
proposed
to
our
ad
is:
would
it
be
okay?
A
We
went
to
the
recharter
ring
and
we
simply
brought
that
one
document
forward
if
it's
not
on
the
fast
track.
Yet
we
would
bring
it
forward
into
this
new
working
group.
With
this
new
charter,
if
it's
going
to
stay
on
the
standards
track,
that
just
provides
a
demark
point
in
the
life
of
this
working
group
versus
the
new
one
and
Alexander
Alex.
B
Under
my
effort,
first
to
fight
I,
don't
understand
what
the
fast
track
would
be.
I
just.
A
B
We
if
we
consider
a
charter
that
says
that
the
working
group
will
well
pre-release
it
work
on
documents
of
the
specifying
EPP
extensions
that
are
in
standard
strike,
then
that
would
actually
include
the
relay
document
as
according
to
Jim
in
the
new
revision
radio
to
say
no,
we
are
not
going
for
informational,
so
we're
going
to
realize
it.
So
essentially,
I
think
that
the
charter
could
simply
a
state.
B
A
A
Okay,
so
the
other
critical
thing
to
talk
about
with
any
working
group
is
what
its
lifetime
is
likely
to
be,
and
so
this
again
was
a
topic
which
Barry
and
I
had
had
talked
about.
He
had
had
pressed
me
on
this
question
and
I
will
now
exposed
to
the
working
group.
The
response
that
I
gave
him
in
this
category,
to
the
extent
that
the
registry
of
extensions
really
is
going
to
live
forever.
A
A
What
we're
doing
or
maybe
they'll
just
be
one
item
left
in
the
pipeline
or
something
there'll
be
a
I
suggested
that
there
would
be
a
fairly
obvious
time
when
clearly
our
workload
is
shrinking
and-
and
it's
you
know,
there's
nothing
doesn't
look
like
there's
anything
significant
coming
and
it
seemed
to
me
that
that
would
be
a
good
time
and
we'll
have
to
watch
that
ourselves.
I'm
sure
the
ad
is
going
to
watch
it
with
us
and
we
could
just
subjectively
decide
that
you
know
now
is
a
good
time.
A
Let's
end
this
working
group
and
then
what
the
ITF
we
do
going
forward
is
when
somebody
wants
a
new
extension
to
go
into
the
standards
track.
They'll
try
to
do
quick.
You
know
one
off
working
groups
to
deal
with
that
one
extension
as
they
happen
or
you
know.
If
you
get
a
package
of
them
together,
we
could
do
them
together
and
Barry.
Please
and.
B
I,
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
tend
to
reuse
this
working
groups
mailing
list
for
it.
So
it's
basically
we
are
reconstituting
this
working
this
working
group.
The
only
reason
I
want
to
do
it
that
way.
Rather,
the
other
option
is
to
leave
the
working
group
in
a
sleeping
state
until
the
documents
come
and
then
wake
it
up
and
the
problem
is,
it
becomes
hard
to
work
to
wake
working
groups
up
without
going
through
a
chartering
process
to
remind
people
that
they
need
to
pay
attention.
C
A
C
Okay,
Barry
just
said
he
doesn't
need,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
objective,
but
but
personally
I've
seen
this
several
work
groups
in
the
past
going
zombie
samee
alive
for
some
time,
because
some
people
in
the
group
actually
thought
that
it
was
finished.
Some
others
thought
that
they
wanted
to
get
one
or
two
document
more
out
of
the
door
personally
I'd
be
in
favor
of
putting
a
deadline
say
two
years
and
say
if
we
need
to
my
tree
charter
about
that.
C
B
A
A
F
Ming
Kong
gym
I
remember
that
after
I
presented
the
epp
extension
and
purveyor
on
the
row
meeting,
you
suggested
that
this
extension
should
be
a
standard,
trac
document
and
be
discussed
in
the
EPP
x
working
group.
So
I
wonder
if
I
read
a
draft
on
this
topic
later,
the
EPP
xed
working
group
is,
if
it
is
retarted
me
adopted
a
note.
A
Yes,
it
would
be
a
candidate
for
adoption
name.
So
yes,
thank
you
for
that.
The
door
I
mean
basically
reach
our
during
the
intent
is
to
simply
open
the
door,
and
anybody
who
has
a
documented
extension
you're
welcome
to
bring
it
to
the
group,
and
you
know
the
group
will
then
have
a
discussion
about
the
standards
track.
You
know
opportunity
for
the
document
and
make
sure
that
we
get
agreement
will
be
looking.
I
mean
all
of
the
normal
IETF.
You
know,
requirements
and
process
would
come
to
bear
on
it.
A
At
that
point,
you
know
I
mean
you
get
broad
technical
review
with
a
large
part
of
the
community,
be
looking
for
implementations.
That
kind
of
thing
interoperability,
I
mean
all
the
usual
kinds
of
things.
One
would
expect
would
have
to
get
handled
and
actually
I
should
probably
emphasize
that
a
little
bit,
because
one
of
the
things
we
want
to
be
careful
of
is
that
we
really
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
focus
only
on
standards
track
documents.
That's
the
goal
of
this
working
group,
because
we
don't
the
goal
of
this
proposed
new
working
group.
A
A
So
if
there
it's
always
true
that
somebody
they
have
to
really
want
it
to
be
on
the
standards
track
to
bring
it
to
the
working
group.
We
don't
want
to
find
ourselves
in
a
place
where
people
are
just
trying
to
toss
it
into
the
working
group
to
see
what
would
happen
and
then
you
know
just
have
it
be
bounced
out.
B
As
the
former
working
group
here
with
a
very
small
working
group,
looking
in
the
room
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
about
the
volume
on
the
number
of
people
in
the
room,
because
I
mean
we
have
like
20
people
know
about,
10
of
them
are
probably
reading
email.
So
it
boils
down
to
essentially
a
couple
of
individuals
we're
going
to
do
the
work,
so
it
would
be
one
of
the
one
of
the
interesting
things
would
be
to
keep
the
traction
in
that
working
group
over
the
next
two
years.
B
If
we
want
to
continue
that
and
I
see,
a
major
point
would
be
to
actually
get
people
from
the
richest
reciting
multi
idea
for
which
is
hard
yeah,
because
they
usually
not
go
to
ikea
meetings,
but
I
can
see
that
we're
probably
down
to
like
10
people
in
a
year
from
now,
and
that
would
be
a
problem.
I.
A
Mean
I
think,
that's
also
one
of
those
subjective
criteria
that
we
will
keep
in
mind
when
it
comes
time
to
think
about
whether
to
continue
the
working
group
or
not,
and
then
maybe
it's
time
to
spin
it
down
and
deal
with
documents
on
an
individual
basis.
This
this
particular
issue,
I
mean
EPP
in
general
and
all
things
EPP
related
I
mean
fundamentally,
there
are
at
least
two.
You
know
industry
partners.
If
you
will
that
have
to
be
part
of
this
process.
A
Registries
and
registrar's
I
mean
we
do
have
a
number
of
significant
registries
here
today
we
have,
and
there
are
others
on
the
mailing
list,
so
I
think
we're
actually
fortunate
and
that
we
seem
to
have
the
registry
community
reasonably
engaged
depending
on
how
you
want
to
judge
numbers.
I
mean
you
know.
The
fact
that
we
have
happened.
Deficit
novice
around
is
not
much
of
a
comparison.
A
When
you
look
at
the
number
of
service
providers
that
are
out
there
now,
but
in
terms
of
registrar's,
that's
always
been
problematic,
and
we
know
that
I
think
the
workshop
that
that
actually
you
know
verisign
had
you
know,
pushed
on
this
first
time
around.
It's
really
going
to
become
a
more
of
a
community
thing.
We've
got
go
daddy
in
particular,
you
know,
probably
the
most
significant
registrar
engaged
and
they're
actively
involved
and
I
know
that
Roger
Carney
was
here
earlier.
A
When
the
meeting
started,
he
waved
to
me
from
the
back
of
the
room
as
he
was
leaving.
He
had
an
early
flight
out,
so
he
could
stay
till
the
end,
but
he
is
engaged
he
and
actively
so
and
I
know
that
all
of
us
there
are
a
few
of
us
registries
who
are
going
to
do
our
part
here,
going
forward
to
try
and
bring
more
registrar's
in,
and
we
would
obviously
encourage
more
people
to
do
that.
We're
hoping
that,
as
we
start
to
show
some
successes,
will
actually
start
to
see
more
people
interested
too.
A
C
Like
to
make
a
comment
regarding
the
new
document,
the
prevail
document,
it's
basically
the
sellers
document,
I
think
this
is
a
really
important
document,
because
I
would
like
to
make
a
comment
here
regarding
the
Brazilian
market
because
of
the
policy
developments
inside
of
icon.
There
is
a
lot
of
registrar
these
days
that
are.
F
I'm
saying
possible
as
I
understand
what
the
protocol
is
all
about,
but
it
might
be
that
there's
actually
a
span
admission
for
the
protocol
if
we
get
into
the
management
of
the
DNS
beyond
the
registry
register
a
model
that
we
were
so
used
to
thinking
about
so
I
would
think
about
it.
Although
I
may
regret,
Sciences,
maybe
is
a
bad
idea,
but
I
think
I
do
see
possible
scope
creep
for
the
protocol
might
come
into
play
so.
A
F
A
Okay,
not
seeing
anyone
else
at
the
line
and
wes
is
not
looking
up
like
he
wants
to
channel
anybody
from
the
jabber
room.
So
let
me
try
and
restate
again
we
try
and
just
summarize
and
capture
again
what
I
think
are
the
actions
from
this
particular
step
and
and
the
way
this
is
going
to
work
going
forward.
A
I
I
send
support
in
the
room
that
reach
our
during
would
be
a
good
thing
and
I
don't
see
anyone
objecting
at
the
moment
so
I'll.
Take
that
as
a
positive
hum,
and
we
will
bring
that
question
to
the
mailing
list
just
to
confirm
that
we
don't
have
any
significant
objections
on
the
mailing
list
and
the
assumption
that
we
go
forward.
F
F
A
And
thank
you
for
that.
That
actually
was
a
draft
that
was
discussed
at
the
workshop.
Just
purely
my
interpretation.
That
I
didn't
sense
out
of
the
workshop
that
that
was
an
immediate
candidate
for
the
working
group,
but
that
in
no
way
is
intended
to
reflect
that
it
could
not
be
brought
to
the
new
working
group.
So
I
apologize
if
there
was
any
implication
there
and
francisco
yeah.
F
F
That's
certainly
a
topic
of
interest,
I
believe
from
the
case
of
gTLDs.
The
reason
coming
polish
implementation
that
will
require
all
day
Italy
is
to
provide
this
information
to
have
this
information,
so
they
would
have
to
request
this
from
registers.
So
there
is
an
opportunity
for
having
a
standard
extension
to
do
this
right.
A
So,
in
addition
to
this
nice
short
list
of
five
possible
I
think
we've
gotten
another
four
or
five
already
has
possible
candidates
for
documents
to
move
forward.
So
I
think
our
assessment
earlier
that
there
would
suddenly
be
a
great
deal
of
activity
here
in
the
short
term
to
move
some
stuff
along
is
pretty
true
and
that'll,
be
good,
okay,
so
quickly.
A
quick
recap
we'll
ask
on
the
list
and
confirm:
there's
no
objections
to
reach
our
Turing
and
we
will
start
a
discussion
on
the
list.
A
I'll
make
a
proposal
with
Antoine
for
the
new
charter
and
we'll
have
the
discussion
that
we
need
to
have
on
the
list
to
move
that
along
and
then
as
soon
as
that's
complete
and
we
submitted
to
our
ad
and
it
goes
through
the
isg
process.
I
would
expect
after
that
event
has
occurred.
Then
we
come
back
and
we
I
mean.
Maybe
our
ad
will.
A
Let
us
overlap
this
a
little
bit,
but
then
we
get
to
look
at
these
documents
and
decide
which
ones
we're
going
to
take
in,
or
look
for
authors
to
submit
documents
for
standards
of
what
I
should
say.
We
certainly
have
to
agree
to
review
anything
that
anybody
wants
to
submit
as
a
as
a
standards
track.
A
A
Okay
and
I.
Think
that's
the
assessment,
therefore,
that
I
would
expect
as
long
as
we've
got
a
series
of
documents
to
to
work
with,
then
that
will
plan
to
meet
in
in
Prague
I
mean
I'm,
assuming
they'll
probably
be
a
set
of
documents.
So
we'll
have
some
reason
to
have
a
meeting
in
some
future
discussion.
So.
A
A
E
A
B
A
A
B
A
C
I
tried
yeah
actually
actually
knowing
in
advance,
even
if
it's
lady
in
the
week
like
today,
we're
not
bad
to
have
the
the
role
in
this
afternoon
or
maybe
tomorrow,
but
not
in
the
middle
of
the
week,
that
that
would
be
bad
for
people.
That
only
will
be
following
this
working
group
and
the
rolla
meeting
and.
A
B
A
A
D
Sure
Scott
Hollenbeck
here
just
the
one
little
bit
of
feedback
I'd
like
to
share,
is
I
did
an
awful
lot
of
polling.
You
know
in
advance
of
this
particular
workshop
and
the
consensus
of
people
who
actually
said
they
wanted
to
attend.
Was
that
they'd
rather
do
it
earlier
in
the
week
then
later
I
think
after
a
long
week
of
fun
here,
everyone's
looking
to
go
home.
C
C
C
A
I
mean
just
to
be
fair
to
the
process
here.
If
you
will,
you
know
we
have
a
desire
to
want
to
have
our
meeting
as
close
to
the
registration
workshop
as
possible,
but
we
do
have
to
recognize
that
the
registration
workshop
is
not
an
ietf
event,
and
so
you
know
Barry
is
agreeing
to
be
kind
to
us.
As
far
as
that
scheduling
is
concerned,
but
ITF
scheduling
is
IETF
scheduling.
We
can
only
ask
and
hope
the
best,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
gets
stated
pretty
clearly
here.