Subject: action items from our meeting in atlanta

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:59:00 -0500

In general action items (meaning - the WG needs to do this, except 
for where someone's name appears):

1. Respond to the IESG comments.

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

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

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

3. Clarify the adoption of P3P concepts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Continue to progress on Guidelines.

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

Two other action items...

7. Clean up the milestones.

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

8. Other items.

Some other items are being brought to the list.  I'd like to clear 
them up given that we want to complete #1.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:47:41 -0500

At 05:59 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
>In general action items (meaning - the WG needs to do this, except for 
>where someone's name appears):
>
>Most of the comments are easily addressed.  A few need further discussion 
>(and are listed as separate action items).

as for 1 it relates in part to 3 and IMHO it is clear we need some IESG 
clarification or statement of direction here on how / if / when to add 
privacy tags to user collected data.

in principal I'm all for this but as a practical matter it could delay the 
existing work and considering how W3C may or may not be going in that 
direction I just do not think its a good idea for IESG to place a 
requirement here

again I'd love to do it really .. I'm open minded, ..but how to do it is a 
general architectural issue that IAB/IESG should provide guidance on.  IMHO 
this is a much larger issue the IETF will have to confront sooner rather 
than later.

given the fluid US OECD and EC policy swamp

Ed , Japp ...my suggestion is a carefully constructed note to upper 
management that there is a problem here...If you want my help in text ... 
privately let me know and I'll be happy to frame the problem statement and 
issues.

I smell sandtraps and ratholes here it took years for W3C to get any 
consensus on the puny little protocol they came up with

provreg IMHO is not the WG for constructing data privacy protocols in XML 
objects

geopriv is struggling with these issues as it is and it is very very rough 
sledding.

honorable work but do we want to go there?

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

outlaw UDP  .. my vote for what its worth

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

Ok we can tackle this but the if privacy issues are to be a IESG 
requirement I think that calls for charter review and they should make that 
requirement clear.

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

I wont mouth off on this anymore..

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

good idea.

>After the meeting we talked and decided that the milestones on the web 
>page aren't sufficiently descriptive.  Before fixing them, #4 and #5 need 
>answers.
>
>8. Other items.
>
>Some other items are being brought to the list.  I'd like to clear them up 
>given that we want to complete #1.
>--

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:[email-masked]> or <mailto:[email-masked]>
  <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:24:56 -0800 (PST)

Rich,

> this is a much larger issue the IETF will have to confront sooner rather

I propose we use our extention mechs thats what its there for,
addressing unknown requirements....

I'm wokring on a P3Pish example, if folks think that would help explain
this position.

-rick

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:10:35 -0500

> Unless someone objects on the mail list, we're dropping all milestones 

This is certainly fine by us. None of the registries we have talked to 
have expressed any interest in doing EPP over SMTP.

> them up given that we want to complete #1.

We have a few outstanding issues with the current drafts, some of which 
we feel might be sufficiently interesting to warrant changes to the 
drafts before they proceed to draft standard. We are knee-deep in an 
impending code release right now, however, so we probably won't be able 
to make a useful summary of them until next week.

Joe

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:36:11 -0500

>I'm wokring on a P3Pish example, if folks think that would help explain

good, great .. but there are much larger issues here and it is in our 
collective interest to ask IESG/IAB on guidance

your suggestion and examples would be most useful in a note to upper 
management types if our chairs believe this is a useful thing to do.

---

From: Hong Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:43:31 -0800 (PST)

Ed,

Thanks for the summary. Please see my comments below.

Cheers,

--Hong

--- Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:
[snip...]
> results are luke warm for now.

I would like to continue this work with a new
revision. I am just being distracted by other work
right now, but should be able to update the draft
before xmas.

> them up given that we want to complete #1.
There are two major issues that have been extensively
discussed on the list:

(1) handling of external host
(2) handling of last-verified

I would like to see a closure on each one.

> Edward Lewis                                        

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

---

From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 01:08:36 -0500

> addressing unknown requirements....

That make complete sense to poor bus'nocrats like me, methinks.

Completely agree with this one (he says quietly whilst trying not to draw
attention to the fact that he hasn't posted for eight months)

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Edward Lewis" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: action items from our meeting in atlanta

---

From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 01:10:40 -0500

> management types if our chairs believe this is a useful thing to do.

Richard,

This is the second time this week that upper management types have asked me
to provide them with guidance so that they can determine what I think.

For the second time, I don't like it, even if I am wrong.

                     -rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Edward Lewis" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: action items from our meeting in atlanta

---

From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:53:52 -0500

heh...Rick pointed out that my last message made less than sense...:)

Take two: Is there any reason why this can't be parallel tracked? Or did I
miss something important? I mean there's nothing stopping us from continuing
with clean-up in the way that you and Rick are proposing while seeking the
guidance that we need. The two don't strike me as being mutually exclusive
or oppositive. Its a pain in the ass (my earlier point), but probably
necessary.

Feel free to ignore if this one also makes less than sense.

                     -rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Edward Lewis" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:01:01 -0500

While I'm at it, this discussion will be added to the action items 
list I submit with the minutes.  The need to clean this up was 
something I missed when going through the minutes from Kim.  Perhaps 
because the room seemed pretty much decided - no one called for a 
move to the list.

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