[Ietf-not43] minutes of CRISP in Vienna

[April Marine]

Crisp WG - IETF 57 - July 16 2003 - Vienna

CHAIRS:	Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>
	April Marine <april.marine at nominum.com>

SCRIBE: David Knight <dknight at ripe.net(edited for length by April)

- Agenda Bashing

  Ned (sheparding AD) is on a leave, John Klensin will stand in

  George Michaelson: Cathy Murphy should make a contribution.
  Cathy Murphy: In the AOB

- IESG Feedback on Requirements ID (10 Minutes)

  Document was sent, there was some feedback regarding privacy issues.

  Concern raised by security ADs: no mechanism in the protocol for
  someone who had priviliged access to see what was priviliged and what
  was not. Protocol requirements should include something that allowed
  for this kind of distinguishment.

  Group discussed, especially experiences from PROVREG group.  Andy
  Newton, requirements doc editor, said he could send proposed text
  to address this to the list for review.

- FIRS Matrix Compliance (35 Minutes) Peter Gietz DAASI

  Peter presented the requirements, with comments indicating where the
  requirement might not have been clear.  FIRS met all requirements,
  but it emerged that LDAP would actually need extensions written to
  handle some of them.  These extensions are not yet specified, and
  so the FIRS work would have to include that specification.

  Along the way, in discussion of 3.2.2.1 re IDNs, Patrick noted the
  following regarding a change from the UNICODE Consortium:

   Patrik Folstrom:
     If the client is using UNICODE 4 and the request is normalised you
     will not get a match. The errors that the unicode consortium is
     creating can only increase in size. They have changed their
     definition of what stable means. Hope that the IAB can present a
     document on this issue. You don't know today what codepoints will
     be problematic in future. The IDN docs don't talk about this. We
     thought stable meant something else. Storing things directly in the
     normalised string is soemthing we should think about.

     The conclusion is that the IETF is using Unicode in the wrong
     context of what we thought.

- IRIS Matrix Compliance: Ed Lewis, Scott Hollenbeck:

   Ed:
   Started reading in March, couldn't grasp all the requirements.
   Points out some requirements that were confusing.

   Were there any NOs?

   Ed:
   yes, in regard to relay bags

   Scott:
   Presented slides covering the messages sent to the mailing list
   and discussed his issues with the matrix in general.


- Next Steps and Milestones

   Ted: In San Francisco we spoke about next steps. Agreed we would first
   evaluate protocol requirements, if we have a winner then we stop
   processing and move on. Sounds like there needs to be one change in
   the doc, to describe how that particular function is done, meaning
   what LDAP extensions that may be required to implement FIRS.

   Second step is to look at service requiremets. This is harder
   than the protcol requirements, we need more justification for
   each of the responses on the service side. We need volunteers who
   are willing to write fairly comprehensively, do we have someone
   willing to do this for FIRS?

   Is there anyone willing to do this for the IRIS side?

   No volunteers came forward at this point.  Some discussion of
   other ways to proceed, including putting up test implementations
   of the protocols.  However, Ted points out that that is a lot of
   work and expense to go to just to avoid writing.  John Klensin
   points out that if we don't decide something soon, some other
   group will move forward along their own path and we'll have lost
   the opportunity.

   A straw poll of those present showed a strong majority of those
   expressing an opinion in favor of IRIS.

   The group agreed, then, on the following next steps;
      - the FIRS LDAP extensions doc would be written, completing
        the specificaions for both protocol choices
      - a 3 week discussion period on the list would take place,
        starting at the time the last doc was available
      - at the end of that 3 weeks, a call for consensus on the protocol
        to be recommended would take place.

- AOB

  Cathy Murphy:
  A new requirements draft is being coordinated amongst the RIRS, this is
  for resource number space, ASNs IPs, this is in final review, the
  draft itself will be on the table before Minneapolis.

  ?:
  Will you be asking for charter revision?

  Cathy: Probably
  If you want to float it first for review that would be ok.