►
From YouTube: IETF97-REGEXT-20161118-0930
Description
REGEXT meeting session at IETF97
2016/11/18 0930
A
Okay,
so
this
is
registration
protocols,
extensions
everybody
got
quiet,
how
very
nice
we
do
have
a
notes,
taker
and
jabber
scribe
Oh.
A
A
A
Maybe
could
could
when
you
guys
switch
off
when
do
jabber.
When
do
note
I'm
sorry
for
Jabbar
scribe
excellent,
we
have
a
new
volunteer
for
Jabbar
scribe.
Thank
you
and
now
my
co-chair
here
Antoine
is
in
the
jabber
room
and
and
unfortunately,
since
I'm
up
here,
myself
and
I
have
just
my
own
computer,
then
I
can't
see
the
jabber
scribe.
I
can't
see
what's
in
jabber,
so
you
know
other
folks
to
please
pay
attention
and
notice.
A
If
anything
is
in
there-
and
this
is
a
little
awkward
but
I
don't
have
any
other
contact
here
with
Antoine,
unfortunately,
but
he
is
up
here
and
ready
to
be
a
presenter
later
on.
Ok,
so
let's
get
started,
we
have.
The
blue
sheets
will
start
those.
A
Ok,
this
is
the
usual
note.
Well,
anything
you
say
can
and
will
be
used
against
you.
Please
don't
forget
that
this
is
just
a
generic
message
about
document
review.
Request
I
mean
this
working
group
in
general
does
suffer
a
bit
from
activity
level,
I
guess
or
engagement
level.
We
really
have
a
very
small
group
of
us
who
are
actively
engaged
in
taking
care
of
documents.
I
think
that's
partly
just
a
reflection
of
who,
in
the
IETF,
is
really
paying
close
attention
to
registration
issues,
so
it
works
kind
of
a
victim
of
circumstances.
A
But
you
know
they've
had
this
message
up
before
you
hopefully
have
seen
this
in
other
working
groups.
You
know,
please
do
you
know,
take
the
time
to
review
documents,
not
just
ours,
but
documents
and
other
working
groups
to
everybody
appreciates
the
reviews
that
they
get
from
different
people
in
different
contexts,
always
a
good
thing.
This
is
the
eye
chart
which
tells
you
what
our
agenda
is.
A
If
you
actually
can
read
it
or
you're,
looking
at
the
slides
that
are
online
and
you
add
it
up,
you
see
there's
no
time
for
any
other
business,
because
it
all
just
adds
up
clearly
to
our
90
minutes.
But
it's
ok,
we'll
probably
end
up
being
a
little
ahead
of
schedule
here,
depending
on
how
some
of
our
document
discussion
goes.
So
we
should
be
ok,
we
have
our
Jabbar
and
note
scribed.
So
we're
going
to
jump
right
in
here
to
our
other.
A
One
more
jabbers:
oh
ok,
all
right,
Thank,
You,
Alyssa,
I'm.
Sorry,
we
do
still
need
a
jabber
scribe.
Can
anyone
volunteer?
Yes,
ok!
Thank
you
very
much.
All
right!
We
got
that
covered
I,
appreciate
you
being
a
volunteer,
let's
see
if
we
can
get
you
set
up
so
that
you're
in
it
during
this
meeting
and
in
workforce
next
time,
so
agenda
bashing,
actually
the
first
step
gustavo
did
you
have
a
question
you
wanted
well.
B
A
About
dad
I,
so
bad
I,
screw
okay,
escrow,
okay,
sure
I'll.
Try
to
remember
that
I
just
realized,
there's
no
pad
up
here.
Anything
I
have
no
way
to
take
notes
and
remember
so
please
help
me.
Don't
let
me
forget
that
by
if
I
happened
not
to
say
anything
to
later
so
always
kind
of
bring
me
a
pad.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
A
A
Those
who
are
not
tracking
right
side
is
is
when
you
know
one
of
our
competitors
were
to
affiliates
right
side
through
a
registry.
So
anyway,
okay
moving
right
into
our
documents,
will
take
a
quick
look
first
at
documents
which
are
already
in
the
publication
q.
Let's
talk
about
draft
EPP
extensions,
key
relay
since
I
think
that
one's
going
to
have
some
attention
here,
and
it
really
is
the
IPR
issue.
Let
me
take
a
moment
first
just
to
explain
where
we
are
and
what
the
process
is.
A
The
ITF
just
to
be
clear,
has
an
IPR
notification
system.
Okay,
it
doesn't
otherwise
interfere
with
the
other
with
the
IETF
process.
So
it's
an
honor
system.
You
know
if
you
believe
that
you
are
aware-
and
you
can
be-
anyone
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be.
Your
employer
could
be
something
that
you
discovered
that
someone
else
did.
A
There
are
folks
who
have
done
that
to
you
simply
can
request,
there's
a
form
that
you
fill
out
and
you
can
put
a
notification
up,
that
there
is
potentially
some
kind
of
IPR
that
is
related
to
a
document
and
in
this
particular
case,
verisign
themselves
has
an
application
for
a
patent.
That
is,
that
is
active
and
they
have
simply,
you
know,
put
a
notice
up.
A
That
says
that
it
might
apply
in
this
case,
and
the
situation
is
that
it's
an
application,
that's
pending,
it
hasn't
been
issued
yet
and
so
far
speaking
now
as
working
group
chair.
What
I
understand
about
the
status
of
this
document
is
that,
although
people
have
no
objection
to
the
document,
there
was
some
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
where
people
were
not
generally
in
favor
of
moving
the
document
forward
without
any
kind
of
indication
of
what
licensing
terms
might
be
for
the
IPR.
Now
it's
important
understand
that.
A
There's
no
obligation
for
the
owner
of
the
patent
in
this
particular
case
or
the
patent
application
in
this
case
to
say
anything
about
licensing
terms
and
the
working
group
simply
only
has
to
take
under
advisement
the
fact
that
potential
IPR
exists.
So
it
is
ok
for
the
working
group
to
decide
to
move
this
forward
without
any
specific
indication
of
licensing
terms.
It's
also
okay
for
the
working
group
to
decide
to
wait
and
see
if
licensing
terms
become
made
available
when
the
patent
is
issued
right
now,
the
way
I
am
reading.
A
The
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
is
that
there
is
not
an
overwhelming
amount
of
support
for
moving
this
document
forward,
with
essentially
undefined
licensing
terms.
The
document
authors
of
course,
would
very
much
like
to
see
this
thing
move
forward,
and
you
know
they're
really
looking
for
the
working
group
to
think
about.
You
know
how
they
really
feel
about
this
I
mean.
Does
the
working
group
really
want
to
wait?
It
is
a
working
group
document.
A
A
But
I
guess
I'm
opening
the
floor
for
discussion.
If
anyone
wants
to
say
anything,
I'm
interpreting
working
group
consensus
as
holding
this
document
back
for
right
now
until
we
are
aware
of
some
licensing
terms,
I
don't
know
if
anyone
in
the
group
would
like
to
to
support
it
differently
that
the
authors
have
very
clearly
spoken
on
wanting
the
document
to
move
forward,
but
I
I
feel
like
if
we
can't
get
support
from
others
in
the
working
group
are
doing
that.
A
D
Cooper
I'm
kind
of
surprised,
because
at
least
in
the
latest
round
sorry,
these
microphones,
like
they're
electric
static,
obviously
I've
new
to
the
group.
So
I
guess
I
should
say
first
everyone,
I
think
knows:
Alexei
and
I
have
swapped
roles
here.
So
this
is
a
whole
new
area
for
me,
so
please
be
patient
but
and
so
I
don't
know
the
whole
history
of
the
previous
discussion.
But
at
least
in
the
latest
discussion
on
the
list.
I've
only
seen
support
for
moving
forward.
So
can
you
maybe
provide
a
little
bit
further
explanation
or
labia.
A
Mystery
document
authors
I,
I
think
the
support
to
move
it
forward
was
just
from
the
document
authors
and
the
couple
other
people
that
spoke
on
the
list
were
other
people
in
the
working
group,
and
I
was
looking
for
someone
other
than
just
the
document
authors
to
want
to
move
it
forward.
If
people
want
to
challenge
me
on
that
particular
process,
that's
fine,
but
that
I'm
just
feeling
like
I'd
rather
see
overwhelming
support
within
the
working
group
as
a
whole,
not
just
from
document
authors
keeping
my
eye
on
the
me
dekho
here.
E
F
A
H
A
Blue
sheets
are
up
here,
there's
one
up
here
anyway,
there's
another
one
out
there
somewhere,
if
folks
need
it.
So
the
question
that
I'm
going
to
ask
is
are:
is
the
working
group
in
support
of
moving
this
document
followed
and
we
will
hum
for
yes
and
hump
or
no
everyone
understand
the
question.
So
the
sense
of
the
room
is,
you
know:
are
you
in
favor
of
moving
this
document
forward?
Please
come
now
and.
A
Those
opposed
I
heard
I
I
suspect
only
one
or
two
people
humming,
as
opposed
so
the
sense
of
the
room
is
to
move
the
document
forward.
So
I
think
what
we'll
do
is
make
sure
to
say
that
on
the
will
take
as
an
action
here
to
just
see
if
there
are
any
objections
on
the
mailing
list,
but
I
suspect,
I
think,
all
of
theirs,
as
I
look
through
all
the
names
here
that
are
visible
in
the
room.
I
think
we
have
everyone
here.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
next
set
of
documents
or
documents
in
working
group
last
call,
so
we
had
the
launch
phase
and
tmch
functional
spec
documents,
which
were
unfortunately
tightly
coupled
together
a
normative
reference
issue.
We
have
actually
resolved
that.
We
got
a
suggestion
to
separate
that,
so
the
launch
phase
is
no
longer
dependent
on
the
tmch
functional
spec,
so
it
should
be
ready
to
move
forward
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
objections
and
I
think
we're
just
waiting
for
right
up
for
that
right.
A
We
have
a
document
Shepherd
and
we
just
need
for
that
to
get
submitted
to
the
isg
we've
had
our
last
call,
so
that
one
is
ready
to
go
so.
The
unfortunate
thing
is
we
have
the
tmch
functional
spec
document,
which
is
in
a
little
bit
of
a
different
state.
We
have
had
some
discussion
on
the
mailing
list.
I
know
it's
been
mostly
between
gustavo
and
and
patrick
fallstrom.
A
The
issue
here
is
that
it
specifies
some
matching
rules
and
patrick
has
issues
with
the
fact
that
it
specifies
matching
rules,
references
to
them
that
are
ill-defined
and
I,
think
that,
given
that
seems
like
a
fairly
substantial
technical
objection
in,
in
my
view
and
I,
think
that
holds
up
this
document.
The
problem
is
I,
don't
really
know
a
path
forward
to
this.
The
problem
is
really
on
the
I
can't
side,
not
on
the
IETF
side,
as
I
understand
it
gustavo,
because
it's
the
it's
the
rules
that
exist
on
the
itm
side,
which
have
a
flaw.
B
With
that
or
do
you
have
a
different
view?
No
yeah,
that's
correct,
I
mean
the
matching
rules,
those
are
different
and
where
to
find
a,
I
mean
using
the
icon
process,
and
there
are
also
other
potential
issues
with
body
and
handling
I
really
don't
understand.
The
issues
from
I
mean
that
Patrick
is
racing.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
I'm
going
to
have
a
conversation
with
Patrick
to
see
if
I
can
understand
the
issues,
so
I
can
propose
some
solution
on
the
Middle
East.
B
So
in
the
following
weeks,
my
idea
is
to
have
a
conversation
with
Patrick
to
see
if
I
can
better
understand
what
is
going
on.
There
is
also
another
issue
with
some
values
in
the
draft
that
so
one
of
the
values
regarding
the
expression
of
the
acknowledgment
of
the
notice
and
the
other
one
is
the
value
related
to
the
expiration
of
the
actual
team
notice
itself.
Those
values
that
are
in
the
draft
probably
should
have
been
in
a
police
document
within
the
icon
world.
B
They
end
up
being
in
the
draft,
so
I
have
an
idea
on
how
to
resolve
their
issue.
My
idea
is
to
basically
say
that
then
there
needs
to
be
an
expedition
of
the
actual
acknowledgement
of
the
notice
and
just
I
mean
say
that
and
then
add
a
note
saying
in
the
teutuls
2012
crown
of
utilities
the
value
was
48
hours
or
something
like
that.
So
that
is
not
a
reference
like
a
default
value
in
the
draft,
but
it's
basically
like,
like
an
implementation
note
of
what
was
used
during
the
round.
So
in
the
future.
B
A
All
right,
thank
you.
That
seems
to
make
sense
to
me
too,
but
yeah.
This
is
in
the
spirit
of
you
know.
We
tend
to
have
very
limited
expertise
in
some
of
these
things,
and
especially
with
idn,
so
really
do
need
for
you
and
Patrick
to
see.
If
you
can
resolve
this
together
and
then
we
can
move
this
document
forward
to
so.
A
But
the
launch
phase
will
just
get
that
right
up
and
get
that
submitted
to
the
isg
and
see
that
when
moving
forward
and
the
launch
phase
will
keep
back
in
the
working
group
here,
it'll
just
become
a
working
document
come
out
of
last
call
and
we'll
wait
for
Gustav
on
Patrick
to
sort
out
what
they're
doing.
A
Ok,
next
set
of
documents,
so
I
could
do
this
in
two
parts.
These
are
documents
which
are
actually
in
principle
active
in
the
working
group,
and
so
the
first
one
is
we
did
have
the
regex
bundling
registration.
Folks
will
hopefully
recall
that
we
kind
of
put
that
one
on
hold,
because
we
realize
it
actually
could
be
very
well
recognized
as
a
separate
document,
I'm
looking
around
ning
or
you.
Oh
there.
A
You
are
okay
so,
but
we
did
have
a
buff
this
time,
so
it
it's
it's
on
hold
in
this
working
group,
because
we
started
this
mob
discussion.
It
could
potentially
be
its
own
work
item
and
then
we
would
take
this
document
and
move
it
over
there
to
be
in
that
other
group.
If
it
turns
out
it's
another
working
group,
but
we
thought
we
would
do
here
in
this
case
is
give
a
quick
report
on
what
happened
in
that
DNS
bundled
buff.
J
And
but
this
problem
may
be
very
proud
and
very
complicated
and
most
people
maybe
think
that
this
problem
comes
for
a
derived
from
the
application
layer.
So
people
think
that
with
now
the
PS
draft
not
have
a
very
clear
problem
statement
and
the
scope
is
not
as
clear
and
now
and
people
even
challenge
us
that
why
should
we
think
about
it
to
solve
this
problem
at
the
nest,
layer
and
people,
because
people
think
that
this
problem
maybe
is
very
proud,
very
complicated
at
the
application
layer.
J
So
that's
a
big
challenge
and
for
the
next
step
we
think
that
first
we
should
make
try
to
make
the
our
problem
statement
as
clear
and
possible,
and
we
want
more
discussion
in
the
mailing
list
and
then
we
I
think.
Maybe
we
try
to
make
some
running
code
and
test
bed
to
prove
what
kind
of
problem
we
want
to
solve
and
I
think.
Maybe
this
this
focus
is
a
little
difference
with
the
rag
extend
scope.
J
You
can
contains
not
only
the
provisioning
layer,
the
registration
layer
and,
but
also
there
may
be
there
in
a
slayer,
but
because
people
all
understand
what
is
the
mandolin
domain
names
and
the
user
do
want
to
get
a
band
out
about
a
package
of
the
band
or
domain
name.
So
I
think
whether
or
not
the
buff
is
that
domain
name.
A
bandit
ball
is
clear,
not
but
the
requirement
for
the
register
Banerjee
domain
names
of
our
working
group,
I
think,
is
clear.
J
L
K
Rich
murderer
with
godaddy.
Thank
you
for
the
reminder.
We
did
participate
in
this
with
Ning
and
see
I'm,
Nick
and
I'm
one
of
the
people
that
thinks
that
there
could
be
a
really
robust,
dns,
bundling
definition
instead
of
use
cases
and
I.
Think
one
of
them
is
a
very
one
of
very
valuable
ones.
Is
the
scenic,
a
desire
to
have
a
level
of
sameness
in
the
way
that
resolution
works,
for,
let's
say,
ID
ends
of
traditional
and
simplified
chinese,
etc.
K
Just
didn't
want
to
see
us
to
find
this
project
is
being
done
when
we
come
up
with
a
solution
for
the
simple
case,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
try
to
solve
all
the
world's
bundling
problems
and
delay
the
solution
of
the
simple
case
either
I'm
keeping.
We
should
focus
on
getting
that
simple
case
to
find
simpler
case.
I
have
been
told
it's
not
simple,
but
anyway.
Thank
you.
A
So,
thank
you
for
that
and
I.
What
let
me
emphasize
one
thing
on
the
bottom.
It
says
and
on
the
bottom
of
this
one
slide
here,
keep
discussing
in
the
mailing
list
just
to
be
clear:
that's
the
DNS
bundled
mailing
list.
It's
you
know,
sets
and
standard
IETF
mailing
list,
DNS
bundled
the
name
of
the
bath
and
please
do
join
that
list
and
continue
the
discussion
there.
I
the
plan
here
is
for
Ning
and
I
will
be
providing
a
revised
problem
statement
there
to
continue
the
discussion
at
it
out
of
the
bond
to
this
list.
I
Yes,
assume:
go
from
verisign
I
did
at
end
of
off.
I
did
not
speak
there,
but
the
way
I
see
this
is
I,
see
it
in
two
different
areas,
one
on
the
provisioning
side
and
that's
something
specific
I
think
this
group
could
tackle
on
the
DNS
side,
where
in
essence,
register
on
could
find
relationships
or
bundling
between
different
domain
names.
I
think
that's
otoscope
for
this
working
group,
but
may
be
very
interesting
elsewhere.
I
think
it's
a
problem
that
were
looking
at.
A
M
My
offer
I
just
rather
quickly.
I
agree
with
what
Jim
said:
I
think
that
the
provisioning
site
is
out
of
scope
of
DNS
model.
It
seems
to
discussion,
all
went
around
dns,
and
so
I
think
we
can
happily
move
forward
with
on
the
provisioning
side,
with
whatever
we
like
to
do.
Okay,
we
should
maybe
consider
the
outcome
of
that
up.
I
mean
we
can
still
create
an
updated
version
of
whatever
we
want
to
do
with
regards
to
bundling
of
the
registration
site.
Okay,.
A
You
just
said
something
that
I
did
not
understand
from
what
Jim
said
so
I
just
just
for
clarity
here,
so
we're
back
to
talking
about
the
registration,
bundled
document.
That's
here
you
think
we
should
move
forward
with
that
not
hold
while
we're
waiting
for
this
path.
This
this
work
to
connect
some
seeing
nodding
heads
but
go
ahead.
Yes,.
I
A
So
I
take
that
here
take
the
point
here,
so
we
should
hold
this
document
and
see
if
we
can
move
it
forward
in
this
group,
the
registration
bundling
and
then
separately.
We
have
the
BOP
that
goes
on,
which
we
can
continue
to
report
on
in
this
group
anyway.
I
think
they're
closely
related,
so
we
should
just
be
telling
each
other
about
the
work.
That's
going
on
there,
any
other
questions
or
comments,
and
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
The
question
that
was
open
on
the
mailing
list,
which
is
still
an
open
question
here,
is
what
problem
are
we
trying
to
solve
with
this
work?
N
This
is
named
joe
cynic
and
next
we
are
going
to
talk
about
it's.
The
open
questions
for
every
cell
address.
I
think
it
is
the
time
for
the
working
group
to
decide
what
is
the
exactly
the?
N
What
is
the
problem
we
want
to
solve
in
this
group
and
whether
we
just
want
to
display
a
result
naming
rdds
or
we
want
to
make
it
a
worse
more
than
just
to
display
some
reseller
information,
next
week's
and
in
lasta
ITF,
berlin
and
the
required
reseller
drafts
were
requested
to
have
more
reviews,
and
we
made
several
discussions
res
on
the
mailing
list.
Several
people
gave
us
feedback
SIA,
and
this
may
help
us
to
think
more
about
the
purpose
of
why
we
do
reseller
extension
seeing
EPP
and
the
part
of
it.
N
We
want
to
enable
it
and
the
most
obvious
reason
that
we
want
to
have
a
reseller
name
in
the
RDS,
whether
it
is
who
is
or
are
deaf
and
part
of
it.
Maybe
we
want
to
help
and
may
have
a
bility
for
the
extensions
to
give
a
young
reseller
features
at
a
registry
level.
N
It
may
among
several
aspects
such
as
the
financial,
cristela,
financial
security
policy
and
reporting
in
next
week's,
and
here
is
the
open
question
for
our
working
group
and
the
put
the
future
direction
for
the
risotto
jobs
just
to
support
a
wrist
and
the
name
or
support
or
reseller
object
for
further
reseller
features
display
at
a
registry
level.
And
next,
please-
and
here
we
have
four
options
and
that
have
been
discussed
a
long
time
in
underworld
mailing
list
and
the
first
is
we
and
the
simplest
one
needs.
N
We
just
have
an
ID
and
the
name,
extensions
in
EPP
associated
with
other
provisioning
objects
and
the
second
voice.
We
can
use
contact
object
and
the
third
we
could
do
adjust
as
the
reseller
drugs
to
did
currently
have
an
independent
vesela
object
and
the
last
one
in
the
is
mentioned
that
we
can
have
a
more
general
object
with
different
prototypes
for
those
reseller
and
the
registrar,
because
they
see
them
may
have
some
overlapping
features.
N
We
can
reuse
contact
our
object,
but
the
reseller
and
the
context
of
objects
may
have
an
output
overlapping
features
between
them,
but
on
the
rosella
may
have
some
uniqueness,
it
may
have
contacts
and
our
contact
doesn't
have
a
type.
A
type
element
element.
Next,
please,
and
the
are
the
option
c
new
result,
object
and
I
can
see.
N
One
advantage
meant
of
doing
in
this
way
is
that
it
is
a
flexible
way
to
extend
other
features
such
as,
maybe
you
don't
know,
just
the
one
to
display
names
of
fuse
and
the
you
have
other
requirements
such
as.
So
you
want
to
display
the
reseller
email
URL
at
addresses,
and
it's
much
more
easier
in
this
way
to
to
do
this
and
are
encouraging
about
the
registrar's
also
said
I'd
mentioned
before
the
security
policy
and
the
report
options
for
the
reseller
and
add
a
registry
Apple.
Next,
please
and
the
Duster
choices.
N
N
We
can
have
registrants,
registrar,
reseller
and
also
yes
operator,
but
it's
a
row
type
of
entity,
but
they
all
have
their
uniqueness
and
although
they
may
have
some
some
overlapping
features-
and
so
here
here
Oh
what
we
got
here
and
I
think
it's
better
to
think
about
which
way
we
want
to
go
and
the
words
the
future
direction
for
the
real
reseller
drafts
and
OH
we'd
like
to
hear
the
working
group
feedback
sender
can
modify
the
reseller
drop,
soo
Jung
called
in
switz,
most
reefers
villains
and
next
question
or
comments.
A
N
Think
I
have
comments
and
from
many
place
that
week
for
ma
s
idea,
I
think-
and
they
have
seen
some
user
cases
to
display
summary
seller
information
at
the
registry
level
and
I
think
I'll
call
zara
verisign
so
have
some
similar
to
use
cases.
Okay,.
I
Since
Jim
go
from
verisign,
so
to
be
fair,
I
am
a
co-author
on
these
drafts
and
I
was
wrong
that
pushed
for
the
reseller
object
and
because,
honestly,
the
the
addition
of
adding
reseller
information
into
the
registry
for
the
sole
purpose
of
displaying
it
into
our
dapper
who
is
is
like
I,
said
an
anti-pattern.
We
do
not
really
desire
for
this
to
continue.
I
So
if
we
are
talking
about
defining
a
reseller
and
allowing
registrar's
to
populate
that
in
the
registry,
let's
make
it
useful
for
other
things
as
well,
so
my
proposal
is
to
create
it
as
an
object,
but
to
make
all
the
attributes
other
than
the
name
optional.
So,
therefore,
if
registrar's
want
to
populate
this
information,
they
can
go
ahead
and
do
that.
But
we
have
an
extension
point
that
we
can
better
serve
them.
M
Sorry
guys
Alex
my
offer
with
flexibility
comes
a
great
complexity,
so
especially
in
combination
with
all
the
other
things
that
we
have
an
epp
already,
adding
yet
another
object
that
is
hyper
flexible
to
do
all
kind
of
polishing
on
the
registry,
all
kind
of
settings
in
whatever
way
yet
another
dimension
of
complexity
and
the
whole
industry,
which
in
turn
makes
it
a
chartered
support
for
registries.
It
creates
a
wide
variety
of
implementation.
Variance
for
registers
to
support,
so
registrar's
will
probably
hate
it
yeah,
just
because
the
only
thing
they
love
to
do
it.
M
Reseller
so
I,
like
simple
things
and
I'm,
worried
about
the
complexity
of
creating
yet
another
policy
expression,
language
in
EPP
that
has
implications
on
whatever
RDS
DNS,
maybe
payment,
yeah
rate
limiting
on
the
EPP
interface
I,
don't
know
yeah.
If
resellers
are
so
eager
about
connecting
to
the
registry
and
doing
their
thing,
why
don't
they
simply
get
their
own
account.
P
Jody
conquer
from
godaddy
I,
I'm
wondering
first,
if
there's
a
fifth
option
here
and
it's
just
an
option
of
just
sending
in
the
reseller
I
reseller
name
with
the
domain
create
up
there.
I'm
wondering
you've
got
a
reseller
ID
to
be
connected
to
a
contact,
a
host
and
the.
L
P
Yet
our
tap
only
requires
it
for
the
domain.
It
doesn't
require
it
when
it's
when
it's
listed,
it's
just
for
the
domain,
I
believe
I,
don't
believe
it's
on
the
host
or
the
contact
I'm,
just
wondering
if
that's
correct
or
if
I'm
out
of
line
anyway
I
agree
with
Alex
I.
Have
that
right.
I
agree
with
Alex
that
this
is
adding
a
lot
of
complication.
You
know
having
to
maintain
a
reseller
object
at
the
registry
is
just
something
that
godaddy
would
never
do.
I
mean
we.
P
Problems
with
you
know,
contacts
domains,
hosts
and
adding
another
object
is
just
very
complex,
and
you
know
turning
off
a
reseller
at
the
registry
when
we
turn
it
off
in
our
systems.
That's
all
we
need
I
mean
we're
going
to
keep
track
of
all
our
financials
and
everything
else
with
the
resellers
in
our
database,
and
that
really
isn't
anything
that
we
would
transmit
to
the
registry.
N
B
Q
Pekovic,
just
on
a
pure
30k
view,
I
found
it
strange
and
I'm
not
in
favor
of
or
against
the
reseller
object.
But
if
that
exists,
I
found
it
strange
that
we
do
not
have
a
register
object.
It
means
like
a
reseller,
is
more
important
that
I
registrar.
If
we
have
a
reseller
object,
another
register
object
so
on
a
model
kind
of
view.
I
find
it
strange
if
we
have
a
result,
object
or
not.
A
register
object,
I'm,
not
saying
that
I
want
our
object,
but
if
we
have
that
it
strange
not
to
averages
the
object.
M
Well,
loaded
Patrick
Alex,
my
over
again.
M
The
maximum
amount
of
information
I
want
about
reseller
in
the
registry
is
a
new
contact.
Roll
essentially
reusing
the
same
contact
object.
That's
as
much
as
I
would
want
to
see
ya,
not
more
complexity
than
that,
because
the
contact
is
essentially
garbage
in
garbage
out
already
anyways
yeah.
Besides
some
policy
validation
on
the
contact,
but
then
I
agree
with
Patrick.
Why
is
a
reseller
suddenly
so
much
more
important
than
a
registrar?
Just
because
there
is
no
contractor
in
relation
with
the
registry?
M
R
Hi
Scott
Hollenbeck
I
want
to
build
a
little
bit
of
on
Patrick
just
said,
and
it
might
be
helpful
to
think
about
how
we
tackle
this
issue
in
the
definition
of
our
DAP
right
are.
Def
does
not
have
a
notion
of
registrar
or
reseller.
We
have
this
notion
of
entity.
Right
and
entities
can
have
roles.
So
if
we
do
decide
to
go
down
this
path
of
continuing
to
define
some
new
type
of
object,
I
would
not
necessarily
want
to
see
something
that
is
very
specifically
and
narrowly
scoped.
R
As
a
reseller,
I
would
be
more
in
favor
of
you
know,
coming
up
with
some
type
of
a
mapping
for
an
entity
that
can
have
multiple
roles
where's,
my
friend
Oliver
over
there
right.
So
we
also
have
this
no
of
service
provide
other
types
of
service
providers
right
who
actually
play
a
role
in
this
ecosystem,
and
so
there's
yet
another
example
of
something
that
is
not
a
registrar
or
a
reseller
for
which
there
may
be
purpose
of
identification
right.
But
then
this
gets
us
back
again
to
why
are
we
talking
about
this
at
all?
R
E
Larissa
is
I,
think
you're
asking
for
a
whole
nother
level
of
hell
by
talking
about
financial
and
reporting
things
like
that.
I,
don't
think
that
any
two
of
us
in
this
room
will
have
the
same
requirements
for
financial
information
or
reporting
and
other
things
we
will.
We
will
need
several
years
figuring
out
how
we
should
combine
that
into
one
document.
That's
just
I,
don't
see
that
happen
at
all
I
think
we
really
need
this
very
minimal.
If
we
need
something
at
all,
we
should
really
let
it
be
as
minimal
as
possible.
I.
A
Would
like
to
take
a
moment
to
insert
myself
in
the
queue
here
if
I
can,
just
just
for
a
moment,
I
have
a
suggestion.
I
actually
had
this
question
earlier,
but
I
wanted
to
hear
what
some
of
the
discussion
was
in
the
room
and
and
my
leading
question
about.
Who
else
needs
this?
Besides,
you
sort
of
drove
now
what
I'm
going
to
suggest.
I
think
this
working
group
actually
can
serve
two
roles,
and
that
was
all
part
of
its
charter.
When
it
was
created,
I
mean
its
principal
role
is
always
one
of
you
know.
A
Do
we
need
an
extension
that
needs
to
be
standardized
in
the
industry,
so
a
lot
of
people
are
going
to
do
it
and
it
needs
to
be
available,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
we
get
a
lot
of
review
for
that,
so
that
hits
the
standards
track
and
goes
out
that
way,
but
I
think
of
a
path
for
this.
The
second
role
for
this
group
is
also
just
in
general,
to
review
new
ideas
and
new
suggestions
for
things,
because
you
know
we
had
the
expertise
here,
so
we
click
comments
and
deal
with
that.
A
But
that
means
that
the
path
to
publication
here
is
not
that
it
goes
on
to
the
standards
track,
but
you
can
just
get
an
entry
in
the
registry.
You
know
I
mean
this.
Is
this
as
your
document
as
long
as
you
put
it
up
somewhere
so
that
it's
generally
available
in
published
you
can
just
make
an
entry
into
the
extension
registry
at
I
Anna
and
get
it
published
that
way.
A
If
you
need
a
lot
of
extra
information
or
it's
something
that
works
for
you
so
you're,
just
simply
making
it
visible
to
all
other
registrar's
that
you
know.
This
is
the
way
that
you
expect
it
when
they
work
with
you.
But
it's
not
really
a
standard,
not
an
internet,
wide
standard,
since
some
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
applicable
to
a
broad
community.
Even
though
there's
a
couple
of
others
so
I'll,
let
you
think
about
that
per
minute
Roger.
S
A
K
Rich
murdering
her
from
godaddy
again
and
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
in
I
realize
this
isn't.
A
policy
discussion
is
that
the
reseller
is
an
agent
of
the
Registrar
in
the
contracts
that
the
Registrar
has
with
the
registry.
The
registrar
is
completely
responsible
for
all
the
activities
and
actions
undertaken
by
the
reseller
and
mentioning
the
reseller
may
be
an
optional
component
as
buck.
Her
policy,
at
least
through
I,
can,
as
far
as
associating
with
the
domain
name,
creating
a
full
object
and
actually
giving
them
an
emplacement
within
the
system.
A
Leading
to
it
and
before
you
go
away,
I
just
want
to
make
one
quick
distinction
reminder
to
us
all.
You
know
this
is
where
we're
getting
into
the
sinking.
Gtld
space
and
ccTLD
space
and
rich
was
talking
about
gTLD,
space
and
soul,
as
you
don't
want
to
add
anything
to
that
comment
and
find
next
in
line
at
the
mic.
H
A
A
Looking
for
other
input
and
advice
about
what
this
could
look
like,
you
know
best
practices,
that
kind
of
thing
and
then
your
path,
publication
is
just
to
you
know,
get
it
on
to
the
iono
registry
of
extensions,
but
not
try
to
make
it
an
internet
standard
and.
A
Right,
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
issue
with
you
proposing
what
you
would
like
to
see
in
an
epp
extension
arm
and
and
what
you
want
in
an
epp
transaction
mom.
But
since
it
is
just
entirely
optional,
I
think
it's
really
just
something
that
you
would
want
and
you
get
to
define
the
way
that
you
want
it
to
be,
and
then
you
can
make
an
entry
for
it.
We.
A
Okay,
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
folks,
in
the
room
believe
that
I'm,
representing
what
other
folks
heard
in
the
room
is
consensus
here.
So
if
anyone
wants
to
jump
up
and
head
to
what
I'm
saying
or
correct
me,
that's
fine,
so
I
think
you're
going
down
the
path
of
there's
a
piece
of
this
that
you
still
want
to
put
on
the
standards
track
and.
N
N
A
Right
so
there's
the
reseller
draft
and
the
reseller
dash
extension
draft
and
so
all
right.
So
what
you're
asking
now
is
the
reseller
gas
extension
drab
you'd
still
like
to
see
that
go
on
to
the
standard
track,
but
the
reseller
draft
could
be
one
that
we
would
review
here
and
provide
some
input
and
expertise
and
guidance
about
what's
there,
but
that
would
be
something
that
you
would
publish
separately
just
on
the
registry
of
extensions.
A
I
It
sounds
like
that's
the
only
path
forward
at
this
point,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
to
the
group
that
we're
missing
an
opportunity
here,
honestly
by
providing
just
a
tag
on
the
domain
names
for
the
sole
purpose
of
displaying
it
in
our
death
is
again
is
a
anti
project
pattern
that
we
should
not
follow
so.
But
that
sounds
like
the
only
path
forward
at
this
point
for
this
draft.
So.
A
I
J
All
right,
thank
you
name.
Comb
scenic,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
that
the
requirement
of
reseller
is
clear,
so
the
the
conflict
is
that,
should
we
makes
a
minimal
solution
or
the
maximum
solution.
So,
in
my
opinion,
I
support
that
we
move
forward
the
reseller
extension
first
and
we
can
keep
on
discussing
on
the
reseller
of
deck
in
the
mailing
list
and,
if
possible,
maybe
we
can
publish
it
eat
it
as
a
experimental
or
informational
RFC
of
the
reseller
object
or
just
stop
it.
J
A
A
I
think
what
I'd
rather
do
in
the
interest
of
time
I
mean
I,
guess
you're,
looking
for
advice
on
which
one
of
those
options
to
go
forward
with
I
mean
you
would
like
that
to
you.
He
listed
options:
a
2d
priora
that
the
reseller
document.
Okay,
would
you
like
us
to
try
and
get
a
sense
of
the
room
on
that
or
you
wanna?
Can
you
take
that
discussion
to
the
mailing
list
and
press
on
it?
There
I.
A
Our
folks,
in
the
room
prepared
to
hum
on
that
you
know
just
a
quick
show
of
hands.
Do
you
have
an
opinion
about
a
2d
you'd
be
willing
to
for
me
I,
don't
see
any
ends
coming
up,
but
I
just
want
to
know
if
people
are
will
hum
or
not.
If
we
do
the
a
2d
and
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
up,
you.
K
A
Enough,
that's
a
good
point
to
and
Alyssa
please
Alyssa.
D
Cooper,
so
these
are
options
in
the
reseller
draft,
correct,
okay,
and
so,
when
the
conclusion
you
just
came
to
is
that
gonna
think
about
whether
to
progress
that
draft
or
not
or
how
to
do
it?
So
if
what
you're
looking
for
is
like
feedback
about
what
people
which
one
of
those
options
people
think
is
the
best,
then
I
would
suggest
a
show
of
hands
generally
trying
to
get
consensus
right,
you're,
just
looking
for
feedback
about
which
one
people
is
most
interested
in.
D
A
A
So
we
have
four
options
and
option:
a
was
the
ID
and
name
only
option,
I'm
assuming
folks
of
you
know
have
looked
at
the
slides,
and
so
you
know
what
the
the
fifth
option,
which
was
mentioned,
was
just
just
having
the
name
with
the
domain
creek,
which
is
actually
already
there
and
using
that
as
just
the
option
that
should
go
forward
in
this
document.
Is
everyone
clear
about
that?
Okay,
all
right!
A
So
we'll
just
do
a
quick
show
of
hands
here
on
option
a
anyone,
those
in
favor
of
option
a
here
I,
don't
see
any
hands
and
eat
any
jabber
indications
indicated
in
jabber.
You
can
say
ABCD
or
use
e
for
the
last
option.
If
you
want
to
get
your
vote
in
now,
make
it
a
little
easier
for
the
jabber
scribe
to
indicate
okay
option
B
any
hands-on
option,
B
no
hands
in
the
room,
not
seeing
any
indication
of
anything
in
the
jabber
option,
see
a
new
reseller
object.
A
A
Okay
and
nothing
in
the
jabber,
so
it
seems
most
of
the
interest-
is
in
the
last
three
options
and
I
guess:
option:
C
is
one
which
has
four
verses.
3,
not
you
know.
Numbers
aren't
really
all
that
distant,
but
maybe
we
can
put
press
a
little
bit
more
on
the
mailing
list
and
see
if
you
can
get
some
more
discussion
as
to
why
people
want
one
option
versus
another,
and
that
will
be
helpful
to
you
to
choose
what
you
want
in
this
particular
case.
A
It
really
is
your
choice
as
to
where
you
want
to
go
with
it
as
long
as
it's
not
going
to
go
on
the
standards
track.
It's
entirely
up
to
you
what
you
know
how
you
want
to
evaluate
what
you've
heard
here
in
the
hands
and
put
in
the
document
and
then
seek
to
put
that
on
the
registry,
the
iono
registry?
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you
very
much.
A
So
next
document
is
the
EPP
fees
document.
This
document
has
actually
kind
of
been
in
a
pause
for
a
while.
We
have
tried
to
reach
out
to
Gavin
the
principal
author
a
couple
of
times
here
to
move
this
forward.
A
There's
an
option
see
that
was
selected
by
the
working
group
in
the
three
options
that
he
had
their
that
we
just
need
to
get
folded
into
the
document
and
then
push
that
back
out
so
that
we
can
review
it
make
sure
we
still
have
consensus
and
then
it
can
move
forward,
and
there
is
some
interest
in
moving
this
document
forward.
So
I
do
believe
that
I
know
who
to
volunteer
for
being.
The
new
editor
folks
have
already
agreed
and
said
that
they
would
do
that.
A
A
A
So
if
we
don't
have
any
other
comments,
there
we'll
go
to
the
second
part,
which
is
next
set
of
documents
that
we
have
now.
These
are
documents
which
are
working
group
documents.
They
have
been
in
our
in
our
charter,
they're
kind
of
the
next
up,
and
we
really
haven't
had
any
discussion
yet
on
our
mailing
list
about
them.
So
they're
not
active
yet
in
the
working
group.
But
you
know
I
wanted
to
call
them
out
here
and
just
quickly
asked
as
anyone
a
start,
a
discussion
here
in
any
one
of
these
documents.
A
Is
there
a
preference
on
which
one
to
pick
two
to
press
on
on
the
mailing
list
and
move
forward
with,
and
you
won't
have
any
reactions
in
favor
or
against
about
any
one
of
these
four?
Otherwise,
we
really
just
look
on
the
mailing
list
to
try
to
move
them
along
and
move
forward.
So
please
go
ahead.
Is.
I
Name
value
mapping
the
the
env
mapping
is
an
informational
document,
the
change
pole
I
would
want
to
be
standards
track
and
as
far
as
implementation
goes
I'll,
just
let
you
know
that
we
are
leveraging
change
pole
more
and
more
now
and
I
would
encourage
registries
to
start
looking
at
that
extension.
So,
therefore,
you
can
notify
your
registrar's
of
changes
that
you're
making
on
your
end,
but
we're
finding
that
it's
useful
when
it
comes
to
things
like
applying
the
verification
code
policy.
So.
A
A
T
Hello,
this
is
news
to
louver.
I,
have
read
the
verification
code,
draft
and
I
think
there
are
significant
parts
missing,
especially
where
it
comes
to
privacy
considerations
and
where
it
comes
to
the
verification,
service
provider
and
its
implications.
I
think
this
is
an
implementation
of
the
arse.
App
that
has
been
filed
by
verisign
within
I
can
I
think
there
are
potential
quite
some
consequences
to
this
work,
which
have
not
been
documented
at
all
so
before
this
could
move
forward.
T
I
would
really
appreciate
if
the
author
would
document
the
implication
that
and
potentially
what
I
think
would
be.
An
interesting
thing
is
like
to
look
at
the
privacy
guidelines
as
they
are
in
the
end:
I
a
BBC
p,
but
potentially
also
the
human
rights
considerations.
Guideline
as
they
are
currently
being
developed,
are
going
into
a
last
call
next
week
within
the
HR
PC
group.
I
This
Jim
go
from
verisign.
Could
you
please
post
your
concerns
on
the
list
because
I'm
unaware
of
those
particular
concerns,
and
hopefully
I'll,
be
but
respond
to
him
because,
honestly,
the
verification
code
extension
is
very
straightforward.
It
doesn't
have
any
PII
data,
so
she
with
it.
So
I'd
really
like
to
know
specifically
what
you
mean
right.
A
T
So,
building
the
infrastructure
forever
for
verification
service
providers
might
set
up
stronger
obligations
for
people
for
end
users
to
to
obligated
verification
of
the
of
their
identity,
which
might
have
serious
implication
for
their
ability
to
to
to
register
domain
names.
So
building
the
infrastructure
for
this
doesn't
directly
work
with
pii,
but
it
simply
shoves
down
the
responsibility
and
built
an
extra
bottle
neck
and
you're
saying
well:
I
not
had
bii.
So
it's
not.
My
problem
is
I
think
a
bit
short-sighted
because
it
adds
another
point
of
control
in
the
whole
line.
A
I
Jim
goal
from
veras
on
again
so
you're
really
talking
about
architecture
here
and
not
the
contents
of
the
draft
itself,
so
yeah.
If
you
could
post
it
on
the
list
and
we
can
talk
offline
as
well,
I
think
that
would
be
worthwhile
on
this.
But
just
to
note
this
particular
extension
tries
to
ensure
that
the
data
stays
private
and
in
the
particular
country
and
creating
the
infrastructure
support.
That
is
up
to
the
particular
locality
and
it
needs
to
apply
those
verifications.
A
T
So
a
happy
to
take
this
offline
up,
but
also
on
list
I'd
say
the
data
stay
way.
It
needs
to
stay
I'm,
not
sure
if
the
data
verify
whether
the
concept
of
having
verified
service
providers
and
verified
names
is
a
concept
that
we
want
to
buy
into,
and
we're
saying
that
that
is
the
place
where
it
should
be
is
I
think
a
bit
of
a
normative
statement.
That
I
think
we
could
and
should
debate
and
consider.
A
Okay,
next
part
of
the
agenda
is
an
open
discussion
about
ways
in
which
this
working
group
could
reconsider
how
it
works
and
I
think
this
is
a
good
opportunity
to
see
if
Antoine
can
step
into
the
queue
here
and
pick
up
this
discussion,
and
and
do
this.
A
There
we
go
well,
can
you
it
is
kind
of
soft?
Can
you
can
you
speak
a
little
louder?
A
little
closer
to
Mike.
Wait
is
better
that
helps
a
little
bit,
but
it
actually.
It
is
kind
of
quiet
in
this
room.
Unfortunately,
but
just
yes,
they.
L
I
think
most
most
of
the
people
have
I've
read
this.
It
wasn't
suggestion
good
working
with
chairs
from
the
from
the
IDF
chair
and
think
about
how
we
could
save
some
time
or
do
some
some.
Some
things
that
are
different
from
just
only
reveal
our
drafts
and
having
questions-
and
I
thought
about
this-
and
I
thought
well,
you
know
often
we
discuss
documents
and
there
are
questions
at
the
end
of
presentations
that
may
be
resolved
immediately
during
the
meeting
if
he
just
had
some
more
time
and
lots
of
versions
of
continuing
the
agenda.
L
Some
of
the
things
I
thought
of
you
know.
Sometimes
questions
are
asked
where
the
presenter
just
needs
to
look
something
up
of
us
laptop
about
certain
values
or
sometimes
there
is
text
suggested,
but
it
cannot
immediately
be
written
down
and-
and
these
are
the
things
that
are
thinking
of-
is
there
something
that
we
could
do
to
just
have
some
time
on
in
our
in
our
meeting
to
do
some
live
document
editing
or
some
Sun
Life
Robin
resolving
likes,
for
example,
the
the
question
you
just
had
from
London
about
choosing
option
A
to
G.
L
It
is
that
something
that
we
could
discuss
during
you
know
shutting
the
meeting
down
for
like
five
minutes
and
everybody's
discussing
among
themselves,
which
options
that
they
would
prefer.
Those
were
the
things
I
was
thinking.
Oh
so
I
I
realized
that
shutting
the
the
the
agenda
of
45
minutes
will
mean
that
people
that
follow
the
meeting
remote
like
I'm
gonna
now
will
not
be
able
to
join
the
discussion
or
that
these
different
branches
look
recorded
when
I'm
not
for
you
to
follow,
but
but
maybe
it
can
lead
to
some
some
faster
for
census
billion.
L
M
Alex
may
I
offer.
My
experience
is
that
you
can't
solve
any
issue
in
five
minutes,
even
if
it's
very
small
one,
because
five
minutes
are
not
different
enough-
that
all
people
interested
in
voice
their
opinion.
What
does
work,
however,
is
trying
to
get
like
three
to
five
people
who
are
specifically
interested
in
a
certain
topic
together
around
the
table
during
the
meeting
week
yeah
discuss
for
about
an
hour.
M
It's
amazing
how
much
work
you
can
done
in
an
hour
if
the
three
to
four
experts
on
a
certain
topic
is
sitting
together
and
then
have
that
design
team
sort
of
around
the
draft
come
back
to
the
group
and
let
them
report
in
a
five
minute
slide
what
they
came
up
during
that
discussion
and
then
let
the
working
group
decide
whether
that
was.
That
is
some
the
way
they
want
to
go
yeah
so
sort
of
like
the
combination
of
design
team
meeting.
A
The
observation
I
make
that
ain't
one
and
I've
talked
back
here.
Is
we
like
that
suggestion
a
lot
three
to
five
people
in
a
room,
but
it
turns
out
that
for
the
most
part
for
this
working
group,
it's
just
three
to
five
people
who
are
interested
in
a
document.
So
you
know
we
are
essentially
the
design
team
in
this
room.
You
know
I
think
as
a
as
a
simple
statement
here
to
sort
of
summarize
what
Antoine
had
said
before.
A
You
know
I
realize
there's
more
than
three
to
five
people
in
the
room,
but
for
any
given
document,
there's
generally
only
three
to
five
people,
and
so
we
might
use
the
mailing
list
to
pick
a
couple
of
documents
and
set
some
time
aside,
and
you
know,
while
we're
here
in
the
room,
those
three
to
five
people
would
focus
on
discussing
that
document
in
front
of
everyone
and
move
it
forward.
So
we
have
our
ad
once
the
talk.
Alyssa
go
ahead,
Alyssa.
D
Cooper,
so
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
there's
potentially
a
lot
of
flexibility
here,
so
you
can
possibly
do
something
that
both
of
you
are
talking
about,
which
is
you
know
you
could
schedule
an
hour
which
is
a
an
editing
session,
and
then
you
can
later
schedule
a
half
an
hour.
You
know
you
can
request
two
slots
or
you
could
request
to
our
long
slots
or
something
like
this.
This
is
actually
something
that
other
working
groups
sort
of
already
do,
except
that
they
request
two
slots
on
the
understanding
that
there's
going
to
be
designed.
D
Teamwork
happening
in
between
them,
but
part
of
this
experimentation
that
we're
encouraging
is
to
say,
request
a
slot,
even
if
you're,
if
it's
not
going
to
be
just
for
presentations,
so
that's
definitely
an
option.
The
other
thing
that's
potentially
possible
with
this
working
group.
If
this
is
approximately
the
size
that
it
usually
is,
is
that
you
could
request
a
u-shape
in
the
room
if
you
thought
that
would
foster
conversation
better
for
either
kind
of
session.
So
just
something
to
think
about
that
were
promoting
for
smaller
working
groups.
A
Excellent,
thank
you.
I
actually
was
not
aware
that
we
could
request
a
different
setup
in
the
room.
Oh
ok,.
D
A
M
Mayerhofer
arm,
if
we
do
anything
session
during
the
meeting,
I
suggest
that
we
split
it
up
in
smaller
groups,
I
mean
we
are
just
like
30
people,
maybe,
but
still
it
seems
to
me
a
waste
of
time
with,
like
three
people,
I
actually
discussed
in
one
single
draught
and
editing
by
27.
Others
are
reading
your
email,
so
I
suggest
we
like.
M
A
So
that's
interesting
is
the
Antoine
nodding
to
I,
like
the
idea
of
but
perhaps
requesting
to
meeting
slots.
You
know
some
short
ones,
a
short
one
hour
and
and
then
a
short
working
group
one
hour.
So
you
can
have
an
editing
meeting
for
an
hour
and
then
a
separate
our
for
you
know
the
whole
working
group
and
then,
as
you're
saying
Alex
yeah
for
the
editing
session,
divider
self
up
into
groups,
if
that's
possible
and
have
different
people
sitting
in
the
room,
doing
different
documents.
So
it
might
be
something
to
experiment
with
ahead
Jody.
P
At
the
risk
of
being
thrown
out
of
this
meeting
yeah,
you
know
I
just
want
to
bring
up.
Something
seems
like
you
know,
the
mailing
list
happens
and
things
do
happen
along
there,
but
is
there
any
interest
in
you
know
having
just
a
working
group
meeting
with
three
or
four
people
that
are
interested
in
a
document
you
know
getting
together
over
a
phone
call.
You
know
between
the
meetings.
You
know,
between
the
four
months
between
the
meetings
and
start
editing
and
exchanging
ideas.
P
That
kind
of
thing
I
mean
if
you
want
to
run
a
documentary
you're
trying
to
get
it
through.
You
know,
get
the
interested
parties
or
whoever
may
be
interested
on
it.
You
know
set
up
a
weekly
meeting
or
a
bi-weekly
meeting.
I
know.
I
know
nobody
needs
any
more
meetings,
but
you
know
if
we're
trying
to
get
progress
made.
Maybe
maybe
that's
an
idea.
A
So
let
me
take
that
request
and
make
it
into
two
different
kinds
of
things
at
an
ad
hoc
level.
There's
no
reason
that
any
group
of
people
couldn't
get
together
and
try
and
do
something
and
then
bring
it
back
to
the
mailing
list
to
propose
it
since
you
guys
are
relatively
new.
I
will
then
tell
you
that
the
other
side
of
it,
though,
is
you-
want
to
have
an
interim
meeting.
A
There
is
a
certain
amount
of
formality
associated
with
having
a
real
working
group
meeting,
that's
an
interim
eating
and
is
in
any
way
kind
of
a
formal
activity
of
the
group,
because
you
have
to
do
meeting
announcements
and-
and
you
know
this
has
to
be
a
certain
window
of
notice
about
them.
But
ad
hoc
groups
could
easily
get
together
if
they
wanted
to
manage
that
themselves
as
long
as
you're
always
careful
to
bring
it
back
to
the
main
networking
group
mailing
list
to
move
stuff
along
and
Jim
it
Mike
yeah.
I
I
really
like
the
idea
of
having
those
breakout
sessions
before
the
meeting.
Hopefully
other
meetings
aren't
on
Friday.
So
therefore
we
have
a
whole
week
to
do
that.
But
the
point
is:
is
that
maybe,
when
we
post
up
an
agenda,
we
have
it
gen
items
roulette
for
discussions
that
then
folks
can
discuss
and
volunteer
discuss
them,
have
breakout
sessions
without
a
formal
room
per
se
and
then
report
them
here
when
we
need.
A
D
Yeah
Ellis
ticket,
for
just
you
shouldn't
view
there
being
a
high
barrier
to
a
virtual
interim.
It's
so
it's
a
one
week
lead
time.
A
lot
of
groups
that
I
that
I
Shepherd
in
the
other
part
of
the
area,
actually
just
kind
of
have
a
sense
of
what
time
of
day
is
good
for
most
of
their
participants,
and
so
they
don't
even
like
pole
anymore
for
what's
a
good
time.
They
just
ask
about
dates
and
then
choose,
and
it's
also
possible
to
set
up
a
recurring
one
of
those.
D
A
Okay,
so
I
think
I'm
I'm
hearing
from
the
room
that
there
there
is
interest
and
a
desire
to
have
some
kind
of
working
session,
I'll
call
it
and
we
have
interest
in
two
kinds
of
things.
One
is
perhaps
looking
to
set
up
in
an
interim.
You
know
one
or
two
phone
calls.
You
know
pick
a
couple
of
documents,
a
particular
interest.
A
If
there's
a
few
people,
maybe
we
can
can
set
up
and
get
a
teleconference
going
and
move
a
document
along
in
that
way,
and
that
would
be
a
good
thing
and
I'm
also
sensing
an
interest
in.
Perhaps
we
should
seek
to
consider
doing
this
in
Chicago,
we'll
see
where
we
are
with
documents
and
what
happens
as
we
get
into
January
in
February,
but
maybe
we
can
look
to
set
up
to
working
group
sessions
to
shorter
meetings.
Our
group
is
generally
pretty
small.
A
We
don't
generally
need
a
lot
of
time,
but
if
we
can
get
to
our
time
slots
we
can
have
a
working
meeting
and
then
we
can
have
an
editing
session
for
perhaps
some
documents
and
then
not
also
have
a
separate
working
group
meeting
as
a
follow
on
to
that
so
Antoine.
Anything
you
want
to
head
to
that
summary.
L
L
M
One
organizing
it
I
had
that
very
successful
yesterday
for
a
document
I
run
in
deep
ref,
and
it's
really
amazing
how
much
what
you
can
done.
But
it
requires
you
as
a
document,
order
to
really
be
essentially
aggressive
on
collecting
people
around
the
table
and
pushing
for
things
to
become
your
right.
A
That's
right
will
encourage
aggression,
okay,
bring
you
to
buy
fork
alright,
so
thank
you
meant
wanan
and
thank
you
everyone
here
for
that
discussion,
very
useful.
Okay,
now
we're
down
to
the
agenda.
We
have
a
new
work
item,
a
call
for
adoption
on
a
potential
new
work
item
here
and
Roger.
Carney
is
going
to
give
us
a
quick
presentation
on
a
draft
that
he
has
put
out
there
and
distributed
and
get
those
slides,
I.
S
Think
anyone
that
was
in
Berlin
probably
saw
this
because
I
think
Jody
introduced
this
in
Berlin
and
actually
I.
Think
I
may
have
mentioned
it
to
several
of
you.
I
guess
before
that,
wherever
we
were
but
we're
looking
at
it
from
a
registrar's
perspective
is
a
validate
command
and
it
has
changed
quite
a
bit
since
Jody
introduced
this
in
Berlin,
we've
met
with
several
registries
and
came
to
a
better
conclusion
on
how
to
actually
get
this
implemented.
S
S
So
when
you
that
happens,
you
get
an
error
and
you're
down
the
purchase
path
from
a
registrar
perspective,
and
now
you
have
to
try
to
get
the
Registrar
to
actually
correct
or
redo
things
that
you've
already
accepted
from
them.
So
this
the
big
goal
here,
is
to
try
to
get
a
contact
validation
done
prior
to
actually
creating
the
contact,
so
that
we
know
that
these
four
contacts
are
even
these
two
different
contacts
can
be
used
to
register
this
specific
domain
or
this
domain.
Under
this
TLD.
H
Calfire
I've
read
the
draft
and
I
I
think
on
the
certain
circumstances,
there's
some
utility
to
it,
but
what
I'm
wondering
is
whether
it
might
be
worth
expanding
the
scope
at
the
risk
of
making
it
more
difficult
to
adopt,
because
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
are
not
associated
with
the
contact.
So
you're
not
you're,
still
not
going
to
know
everything
you
need
to
know
to
register
a
particular
name.
H
There
are
some
requirements
that
are
based
on
the
string
of
the
name,
for
example,
may
be
trademarks
that
sort
of
thing
they
won't
be
associated
with
the
contact.
So
it's
quite
a
narrow
solution
and
I
wonder
if
there's
a
thought
to
expand
it
or
or
you're
very
focused
on
this
one
type
of
scenario:
Thanks.
S
Car
and
actually
we
not
knowing
what
those
specific
things
are,
we
tried
to
create
a
generic
form
of
the
key
value
so
that
you
could
use
other
things
as
as
a
validator,
so
that
maybe
you
know
to
register
dot
bank.
You
have
to
have
an
ID
or
something-
and
you
know
you
can
pass
that
in
through
the
key
value
of
this
saying:
here's
a
registrant
and
here's
their
ID.
You
know,
and
you
can
get
a
response
back
from
that
outside
of
that
that
was
about
as
generic
was.
We
could
make
it
so.
A
A
So
if
there's
no
more
discussion,
I
guess,
let
me
call
the
question
and
look
for
a
sense
of
the
room
here
to
folks
agree
that
we
should
adopt
this
work
as
a
as
a
working
group
document
and
the
you
know,
what
that
means
is:
is
it's
on
a
path
to
go
to
standards
track?
So
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
this
as
a
working
group
document
hum
please
and
all
those
opposed
I
actually
did
not
hear
any
opposition
in
the
room.
A
R
Hollenbeck
here
and
not
picking
on
Roger,
but
I
would
like
to
make
a
suggestion
for
everyone.
As
you
are
coming
to
the
group
and
asking
you
to
move
a
document
into
the
working
group.
I'm
sorry
I
forget
the
number,
but
we
had
a
recently
published
RFC
in
the
7000
series
that
described
how
to
add
implementation
status,
sections
to
documents,
I
think
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
struggling
with
is
that
we
have
a
very
large
number
of
documents
here
that
don't
seem
to
be
getting
a
lot
of
attention.
R
I
really
like
to
see
people
adding
these
implementation
status
sections
to
the
documents
so
that
we
have
a
better
indicator
of
who's,
actually
paying
attention
to
this.
Who
is
actually
spending
time
writing
some
code
and
what
kind
of
experience
are
you
having,
as
you
try
to
implement
the
specification?
So
if
we
do
agree
to
take
this
on,
Roger
I
would
ask.
T
A
B
Discussing
mailing
list
in
one
ITF
mailing
list,
there
was
no
working
group
for
these
drafts,
but
we
have
a
mailing
list
on
the
ITF,
so
heck
of
a
conversation
with
the
authors
of
the
draft,
and
we
would
like
to
move
those
drops
into
this
working
group.
B
A
B
The
name
are
kind
of
biggest
draft,
a
DS,
noguchi
escrow
and
there
are
fat,
is
noguchi,
escrow
mappings
I
mean
I
continue
d
against
in
the
formal
request
to
the
middle
east,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
that
a
lot
of
you
are
familiar
with
those
wraps.
So
I
just
went
for
those
of
you
that
are
familiar
with
those
I
I
went
to
get
a
sense
of
what
you
think
the.
B
A
Any
any
comments
from
the
room
about
about
these
documents
at
the
moment
and
you
can
a
quick
reactions,
I
think
my
suggestion
is
going
to
be
to
suggest
it
on
the
mailing
list
and
give
people
a
pointer
the
documents
and
give
everyone
a
chance
just
to
take
a
look
at
them
again.
I
think
I
agree
with
you.
I
suspect
they
do
fall
within
the
remit
to
this
working,
but
probably
want
to
check
with
our
ad
to
make
sure
that
they're,
not
out
of
scope
from
the
Charter
the
Charter
is,
is
fairly
narrowly
scoped.
A
O
Louis
I
mean
Jim
and
I
at
one
time
we're
a
ball
chair
for
this
topic
about
five
years
ago
six
years
ago.
So
the
one
question
I
have
here
is:
do
you
think
that
these
documents
still
need
more
work
as
part
of
a
working
group?
Or
do
you
want
to
make
sure
these
documents
get
proper?
You
just
the
matter
of
publicizing
or
I
mean
doc.
Ewing
is
to
give
a
standard
document
that
you
could
refer
to
like.
Do
they
mean
much
more
work
with?
Is
it
just
to
get
these
published
so.
B
As
more
data
points,
I've
been
pushed,
the
registry
select,
for
example,
the
optional
reseller
field,
trailer
name,
the
optional
register
expiration
date.
We
will
need
to
add
those
ladder
fuels
in
to
do
that,
I
screw,
because
if
sunrise
we
start
using
those
data
fields,
I
mean
we
will
need
to
escrow
those
at
some
point.
So
I
think
that
we
still
need
to
do
some
work
on
those
Oh.
R
A
App
to
Gustavo,
okay,
all
right
so
I
think
yeah.
My
my
comment
would
be
to
make
the
suggestion
on
the
mailing
list
and
between
now
and
when
that
appears
we'll
make
sure
to
have
a
chat
with
our
ad
about
about
these
documents
to,
and
they
will
have
something
to
say
about
all
that
there,
but
you
know
I
suspect
they.
They
don't
have
any
other
home,
so
we'll
just
have
to
see
how
we
how
we
want
to
deal
with
them.
So
thank
you.
Okay,
thanks
again,
okay
still
in
any
other
business,
so
that.
R
Scott
Hollenbeck
how
many
people
here
are
faced
with
or
either
faced
with,
or
are
actually
implementing
our
DAP
right
now,
okay,
good,
a
couple
hands
going
up,
good,
good,
good,
alright,
so
I
saw
more
than
a
couple
hints
yeah
yeah,
but
but
I've
got
three
individual
submissions
that
are
focused
on
filling
some
gaps
in
our
depth
that
if
you
are
implementing
our
DAP,
you
might
actually
want
to
take
a
peek
at
all
right
and
two
of
them.
I
will
probably
be
bringing
to
the
working
group
for
consideration
as
working
group
documents
before
Chicago.
R
Okay,
so
other
three,
if
you
are
interested
in
client
authentication
and
being
able
to
use
that
information
to
limit
exposure
of
PII
and
all
that
fun
stuff,
I
do
have
a
document
that
describes
how
you
can
implement
our
gap
with
federated
authentication.
Take
a
peek,
please
I've
got
running
code
any
working
experiment.
If
you
want
to
look
at
it,
the
experiment
is
open
to
the
public.
Anyone
can
touch
this
right
now.
Okay,
option
or
document
number
two.
R
If
you've
taken
a
look
at
the
search
functionality,
that's
available
in
korad
car
I'd
up,
you
might
be
wondering
what
were
those
authors
thinking
when
they
came
up
with
this?
It's
kind
of
lame
its
kind
of
restrictive
kind
of
useless,
but
that's
what
happens
when
you're
dealing
with
rough
consensus
anyway,
I've
got
another
document
out
there
that
describes
a
way
of
doing
our
gap,
search
using
POSIX,
regular
expressions.
R
If
you're
interested
in
that
come
talk
to
me
that
too
I've
got
an
operating
working
experiment
that
you
can
touch
right
now
with
running
code
behind
it
document
number
three.
If
you've
read
the
yard,
a
bootstrapping
document,
you
note
that
it
very
clearly
says
we
have
a
couple
of
things
that
are
holes
here.
You
can't,
for
example,
bootstrap
entity,
queries
right.
Well,
there
is
a
way
you
can
bootstrap
entity,
queries
and
I've
got
it
described
in
a
document.
That's
titled
the
autograph
Hollenbeck
regex,
blah
blah
object
tagging,
or
something
like
that.
R
R
A
A
Well
I
think
this
has
been
one
of
our
best
meetings
here
along
the
way,
we've
had
some
relatively
short
and
quiet
meetings,
but
if
we
had
a
very
good
meeting
here
very
successful
thanks
everyone
for
coming,
especially
since
we
do
short
straw
and
had
the
Friday
morning
meeting
this
time
around,
but
I
hope
that
means
we
don't
get
it
twice
in
a
row
right
so
at
least
in
Chicago
we
won't
be
on
Friday
I
humming
agreement.
All
right
thanks,
very
much.
A
Everyone
we're
adjourned
blue
sheets
I
have
one
of
them
up
here,
the
other
one
is
around
somewhere
there.
It
is
you
haven't
signed
it
raise
your
hand.
While
it's
coming
to
the
front
you
can
grab
it.