regext

Summary

This meeting of the Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group (regext) covered several topics, including ARDAP extensions for enhancing existing protocols and security. Presentations included updates on ARDEP extensions, an RPKI extension proposal, a TTL extension proposal, implementation experiences with EPP, and a security proposal for EPP domain transfers (AltCodeSec). The group also discussed a domain variant support extension for EPP. Finally, there was a discussion around the design choices in the Resource Identity System (RIS) draft and their compatibility with core ARDAP RFCs.

Key Discussion Points

ARDAP Extensions Draft: Clarification of how ARDAP extensions are specified, and addressing non-compliant extensions. Discussion centered on codifying harmless deviations from standards versus disallowing them. Emphasis on avoiding email threads about extensions.
RPKI Extension for ARDAP: Proposal for adoption discussed. RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) registration data available through ARDAP would complement troubleshooting tools and visualize the RPKI hierarchy. Clarification that this extension must not be used to directly influence internet routing.
TTL Extension for ARDAP: Concerns raised about including TTL information in ARDAP that is publicly available in DNS. Discussion about potential for observer confusion due to TTLs varying. Implementation issues related to syncing data between registry database and DNS were discussed.
EPP over HTTP/3 and Quick: Implementation experiences shared. Java HP client class and a Quick K-W-I-K library were used. Discussion about lazy stream creation in Quick and the need for an "EO key Connection Start" message.
AltCodeSec (Domain Transfer Security): Presentation of a security enhancement for EPP domain transfers using public key authentication. Discussions involved public key management, security concerns, and backwards compatibility.
EPP Domain Variant Support: This presentation was seeking adoption. The need to support IDN variants and that support is optional. There are backward compatibility requirements. Statuses of label that can be managed individually.
Resource Identity System (RIS) Draft: Discussion around the draft's unconventional approach of using multiple extension identifiers (five) and bare path segments. Concerns about compliance with RFC 9082 and the use of bare members in JSON.

Decisions and Action Items

ARDAP Extensions Draft: Andy Newton will incorporate feedback from James Gold regarding extension styles.
General Workload Prioritization: The group will discuss prioritizing existing drafts versus adopting new work at the next meeting.
EPP over HTTP/3 and Quick: Jim Gold will look at the possibility of getting the client certificate from the stream.
EPP Domain Variant Support: This will be brought to the mailing list for adoption. It will point to the LGR the not mandated and that that should be a one way to do it.
Resource Identity System (RIS) Draft: Continue discussion on the mailing list

Next Steps

Discuss prioritization of existing drafts at the next meeting.
Review and discuss the adoption requests on the mailing list.
Continue discussions on the RIS design choices on the mailing list.

Session Date/Time: 05 Nov 2024 15:00

regext

Summary

This was the second of two regext meetings, focusing on administrative matters and a review of the working group's current document status. The meeting covered document progress, discussed the ordering and prioritization of documents, and addressed milestones. Discussions also included the use of experimental documents and the future direction of various drafts.

Key Discussion Points

RDAP Extensions and Versioning: The group agreed that the RDAP extensions draft should be completed before the RDAP X Media Type and versioning drafts. Versioning and X Media Type drafts will be released together as they have normative references to each other.
Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP: This document is ready for working group last call, after a previous remand from the IESG and subsequent cleanup of Datatracker status. Jody will update the document shepherd write-up.
RDAP Extension: The document needs an update to incorporate mailing list discussions. The updated version should be reviewed before proceeding to working group last call.
Using JS Contact in RDAP: This document will be progressed as an experimental document. A public record (via the mailing list) defining the success criteria for the experiment will be created.
Milestones: The chairs presented an overview of current and proposed milestones. Discussion focused on prioritizing documents, including EOH/EOQ, and managing the workload given the limited number of active reviewers.
EOH and EOQ: Despite being similar, it was confirmed that the EOH and EOQ documents should remain separate due to potentially different usage scenarios and transport characteristics.
Domain Variant EPP: Discussed the soft correlation between the IDN variant EPP work and the ICANN's new GTLD program. The need for potentially an ARDAP version of the document was raised.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: Release RDAP Extensions draft before the X Media Type and versioning drafts. Release Versioning and X Media Type drafts together.
Decision: Proceed with working group last call for the "Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP" document.
Action Item (Jody): Update the document shepherd write-up for the "Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP" document.
Action Item (Andy): Update the RDAP Extension document based on mailing list discussions.
Action Item (Mario): Create an email message for the mailing list defining the success criteria for the "Using JS Contact in RDAP" experiment and start a discussion thread.
Action Item (Chairs): Update the milestone list, taking into account the agreed-upon document order and prioritization and publish them to the mailing list.
Action Item (Chairs): Remove expired "Coding of REG-ID" milestone.

Next Steps

The chairs will update and publish the milestone list.
The working group will proceed with working group last calls in the agreed-upon order.
Authors will continue to work on their documents, incorporating feedback from the working group.