Subject: [drinks] DRAFT minutes of the DRINKS design team call on 2012-04-04

From: Sumanth Channabasappa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:09:00 -0600

IETF DRINKS DESIGN TEAM CALL 
============================
4/4/2012, 10:00a-11:00a (Eastern)/8:00a-9:00a (Mountain)

Participants
============
- Dean Willis
- Vikas Bhatia
- Manjul Maharishi
- David Schwartz
- Jeremy Barkan

- Sumanth Channabasappa 

Apologies:
- Syed Ali
- Ken Cartwright
- Alexander Mayrhofer

ACTION ITEMS 
============
[Design Team] Resolve open issues raised at IETF83 (see proposals from David, Jeremy) and previous issues (Internationalization by Alex)
[WG Chairs] Resolve authorship across I-Ds, and seek early reviews
[Dean] Send the proposal around the use of RFC4501, and corrections to SPPF that were discussed at the IETF 
(Also see AIs from the IETF WG meeting last week)

AGENDA
======
0/ IETF83 recap
1/ Follow-up on open issues discussion from IETF83
2/ Next Steps

NOTES
=====
0/ IETF83 recap
   - Notes have been posted at: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/drinks/minutes   
   - [Sumanth] Proposed that we continue to discuss the open issues raised at the meeting, so that we can quickly resolve and complete the work

1/ Follow-up open issues discussion from IETF83
   - David re-iterated his proposal around; see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/current/msg01152.html
   - Here's a summary of the issues from the mailing list:
     * comments about the name "route" (e.g. RteGrp and RteRec) not being accurate as LUF involves finding a target and not a location and as such the current model is inaccurate
     * proposal to use the more standard term "SED" and rename RteGrp -> SedGrp, RteGrpOffer -? SedGrpOffer, etc.
     * Comments about a missing abstraction layer clearly disambiguating the LUF and LRF resolution types

   - We had various discussions regarding this proposal; while there was general consensus around clarifying the intent and the usage, not everyone (Manjul, Vikas, Sumanth) thought that the current proposal provided that additional clarity. However, as at the IETF, there was general agreement to rename route record, perhaps to SED record? 
   - After some discussion, Dean proposed that we may want to consider RFC4501 ( Domain Name System Uniform Resource Identifiers) and use URIs for all the different "SED records" (NAPTR, NS record, target URI...)
     > This seemed more acceptable since it is not a radical change and may provide the additional clarity. However, we need to take a look at RFC4501 and see if this will meet our needs

   - In summary, there was general consensus around:
     > Rename 'Route Record' to 'SED Record'
     > Use RFC4501 to represent the various SED record types 

  - The plan is to look at this offline and discuss on the mailing list to ascertain feasibility

2/ Next Steps
   - Continue discussions on the mailing list to resolve open issues
   - Plan for incorporation of the proposals for a quick turnaround and WGLC