Subject: [weirds] Outcomes of today's meeting

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:25:11 +0200

Colleagues,

It's my understanding that our paths forward are as follows, based on
today's meeting:

Search:
1) We will roll a rudimentary search capability into the rdap-query
document, and repeat Working Group Last Call focusing on the new material
once it's added.  I have changed its state in the tracker back to "WG
Document", and set a new milestone of November.  That means a second WGLC
will start in early to mid October.  Please let me know if you think that's
too aggressive or not aggressive enough.

2) The working group can decide on a specific syntax on the mailing list.
It didn't make sense to dedicate precious microphone time to discussing
that this morning, especially since the two proposed syntaxes on the
summary slide are so similar.  This seems like a coin flip to me, but the
working group can decide however it wishes.

3) The working group will need to explore which fields will be searchable,
and which capabilities (ordering, paging) need to be supported.  This will
be predicated on what current registries are doing, or what things
registries are pledging to implement.  It sounds like Scott did some of
that research already to get us started; the group should continue to
explore this and come up with a proposed set of capabilities.

4) We will not work on advanced search, or adopt a separate document for
basic search, at this point.

5) Basic search will be specified, but will not be required to implement.

6) We need internationalization clue here.  I'll see if I can secure some.

7) The results of the search work will impact the JSON response document.

Object Inventory:
1) This is now an official milestone.  I've set it for October of this
year, meaning WGLC around late September.  Again, please let me know if
this needs to be changed in either direction.  I will act as document
shepherd.  The group should review the document and send comments to the
mailing list so we can get it ready for a Working Group Last Call; I expect
this will be pretty painless.

Redirects:
1) We have more work to do in this area, especially since it's tied to
bootstrapping.  This remains an active WG item.  I've set a milestone of
November on this one as well, but it can be adjusted.

Bootstrapping:
1) This one appears to need the most R&D by the working group.
Fortunately, a lot of good discussion occurred at the mic today.  We will
ensure this issue, and redirection, get ample time at the microphone in
Vancouver.

2) There is no single WG document for this yet; two are proposed for
adoption now, and some hybrid model was also proposed in the meeting
today.  When that third draft appears, we can do a (probably extended) call
for adoption in order to choose a path forward.

3) I will create a milestone for this.  I presume Pete will approve it
given its obvious necessity and the attention it's getting, but he might
surprise me.  :-)

Please let me know if I got any of this wrong, or if any of the actions or
dates need adjustment.

-MSK, WEIRDS co-chair

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:49:16 +0200

Le 2013-08-01 à 12:25, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> a écrit :

> Colleagues,
> 
> It's my understanding that our paths forward are as follows, based on today's meeting:
> 
...

> 
> Bootstrapping:
> 1) This one appears to need the most R&D by the working group.  Fortunately, a lot of good discussion occurred at the mic today.  We will ensure this issue, and redirection, get ample time at the microphone in Vancouver.
> 
> 2) There is no single WG document for this yet; two are proposed for adoption now, and some hybrid model was also proposed in the meeting today.  When that third draft appears, we can do a (probably extended) call for adoption in order to choose a path forward.

I intend to write a third draft on the third solution. However, my take is that after some discussion, hopefully we will converge enough to drop two drafts and merge and update one for wg consideration.  We shall not do a call for adoption on each one to find the concensus. I'm not sure if this was your intention, but I just want to put my 2 cents into what I think we should do as the convergence process on this topic.

Marc.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:55:28 +0200

... 

> Search:
> 1) We will roll a rudimentary search capability into the rdap-query document, and repeat Working Group Last Call focusing on the new material once it's added.  I have changed its state in the tracker back to "WG Document", and set a new milestone of November.  That means a second WGLC will start in early to mid October.  Please let me know if you think that's too aggressive or not aggressive enough.

fine by me, but I'm not one of the authors.
...

> 
> 4) We will not work on advanced search, or adopt a separate document for basic search, at this point.

I would suggest rephrasing that "advanced search" (as not the stuff folded into the basic specs) is lower priority for now. It may be just good to do parallel work, because one can complement the other...

...

> 6) We need internationalization clue here.  I'll see if I can secure some.

I think there are many participants in this wg that have some enough good i18n clue, and could be described as part of a non-existent i18n swat team . They may not have been taking the time to give their own comments in public, but may be soon... ;-)  

Marc.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:16:06 +0200

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>wrote:

> adoption now, and some hybrid model was also proposed in the meeting today.
>  When that third draft appears, we can do a (probably extended) call for
> adoption in order to choose a path forward.
>
> I intend to write a third draft on the third solution. However, my take is
> that after some discussion, hopefully we will converge enough to drop two
> drafts and merge and update one for wg consideration.  We shall not do a
> call for adoption on each one to find the concensus. I'm not sure if this
> was your intention, but I just want to put my 2 cents into what I think we
> should do as the convergence process on this topic.
>

Typically what I do in the datatracker is put all of the candidates in
"Call for Adoption" state, and then only the one the WG selects actually
becomes a WG document.  Either way, the outcome is only a single one.

-MSK

---

From: Marcos Sanz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:41:00 +0200

Murray,
all,

I felt in the room a strong push back to the *concrete* DNS bootstrapping solution as described in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-weirds-bootstrap-00
, which I do not find in your summary.

FWIW: I also personally find this bootstrapping implementation A Bad Idea. And for clarification: I am not against DNS bootstrapping in general.

Best,
Marcos

[email-masked] wrote on 01/08/2013 12:25:11:

> Von: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
> An: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
> Datum: 01/08/2013 12:28
> Betreff: [weirds] Outcomes of today's meeting
> Gesendet von: [email-masked]
>
> Colleagues,

> document, and repeat Working Group Last Call focusing on the new
> material once it's added.  I have changed its state in the tracker
> back to "WG Document", and set a new milestone of November.  That
> means a second WGLC will start in early to mid October.  Please let
> me know if you think that's too aggressive or not aggressive enough.

> 2) The working group can decide on a specific syntax on the mailing
> list.  It didn't make sense to dedicate precious microphone time to
> discussing that this morning, especially since the two proposed
> syntaxes on the summary slide are so similar.  This seems like a
> coin flip to me, but the working group can decide however it wishes.

> 3) The working group will need to explore which fields will be
> searchable, and which capabilities (ordering, paging) need to be
> supported.  This will be predicated on what current registries are
> doing, or what things registries are pledging to implement.  It
> sounds like Scott did some of that research already to get us
> started; the group should continue to explore this and come up with
> a proposed set of capabilities.

> Object Inventory:
> 1) This is now an official milestone.  I've set it for October of
> this year, meaning WGLC around late September.  Again, please let me
> know if this needs to be changed in either direction.  I will act as
> document shepherd.  The group should review the document and send
> comments to the mailing list so we can get it ready for a Working
> Group Last Call; I expect this will be pretty painless.

> Redirects:
> 1) We have more work to do in this area, especially since it's tied
> to bootstrapping.  This remains an active WG item.  I've set a
> milestone of November on this one as well, but it can be adjusted.

> Fortunately, a lot of good discussion occurred at the mic today.  We
> will ensure this issue, and redirection, get ample time at the
> microphone in Vancouver.
>
> today.  When that third draft appears, we can do a (probably
> extended) call for adoption in order to choose a path forward.

> 3) I will create a milestone for this.  I presume Pete will approve
> it given its obvious necessity and the attention it's getting, but
> he might surprise me.  :-)

> Please let me know if I got any of this wrong, or if any of the
> actions or dates need adjustment.

> -MSK, WEIRDS co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:12:48 +0200

Hi Marcos, thanks for the follow-up.

I didn't find that there was particularly warm response to any of the
options.  That's why I believe the whole topic needs more R&D in general.
Sorry if that should've been more explicit in that note.

-MSK

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Marcos Sanz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> FWIW: I also personally find this bootstrapping implementation A Bad Idea.
> And for clarification: I am not against DNS bootstrapping in general.
>
> Best,
> Marcos
>

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:52:04 +0200

Le 2013-08-01 à 16:41, Marcos Sanz <[email-masked]> a écrit :

> Murray,
> all,
> 
> I felt in the room a strong push back

I'm sorry. that is not my reading. I've heard a mix of support and not. 

Having said that, I'm agnostic to any and wanted to have a good discussion on the way forward which I think we (somewhat) achieved in the time we had.

Marc.

> to the *concrete* DNS bootstrapping solution as described in

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Aug 2013 00:04:05 -0000

>I would suggest rephrasing that "advanced search" (as not the stuff folded into the
>basic specs) is lower priority for now. It may be just good to do parallel work,
>because one can complement the other...

I'd prefer to declare advanced search to be dead unless we identify a
significant server operator who is planning to provide it.  

I know how to spec out all sorts of complicated search schemes, but
anything more than prefix matching requires complex database
techniques and I don't see why any operator would go to the expense.

R's,
John

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Aug 2013 00:26:55 -0000

>I felt in the room a strong push back to the *concrete* DNS bootstrapping solution ...

In discussions in the room, the new bit of data I got was that more
than one TLD operator was unhappy with anything that put IANA in the
critical path, which rules out both the iana.org registry and
<blah>.rdap,arpa, leaving us with SRV or NAPTR in the TLD.

Being a Lazy Programmer(tm), I registered rdap-servers.net a while
ago, and if the pointers are in the TLDs, I'll mirror them at
<domain>.http.rdap-servers.net and/or <domain>.https.rdap-servers.net.
(I may be a lazy programmer, but I can write lazy programs in python.)

Speaking for Lazy Programmers around the world, we'd really appreciate it
if you used SRV, and stuck to these:

_http._tcp.tld SRV 0 0 80 some-server-name

_https._tcp.tld SRV 0 0 443 some-server-name

i.e., use the standard port numbers, and don't be clever about URL
mapping or weights and priorities, so we can mirror them with A or
AAAA or CNAME.  With sufficient DNSSEC, we should have a reasonable
defense against downgrade attacks for TLDs that offer https.

Also, I talked to Andy Newton shortly before we got on our respective
planes who said that load testing of ARIN's web farm showed that it
could easily handle redirect loads even at the query rate for .COM.
That tells me the plan to do numbers by pointing at a helpful default
server and expecting it to redirect is workable.  That doesn't rule
out smarter bootstraps using the rarely changing IANA tables, but it
provides a simple path for simple clients.

R's,
John

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:34:17 -0400

> significant server operator who is planning to provide it.  

I agree with this.

> techniques and I don't see why any operator would go to the expense.

Not really (at least not any more, if you're using a non-toy RDBMS),
but it doesn't matter.  It's expensive to the WG to define how it will
work in the absence of someone saying what they plan to do, so we
shouldn't do it on the grounds that aimless speculation is a waste of
group energy.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:04:50 -0300

Hello,

> significant server operator who is planning to provide it.
Agreed.

~Carlos