Subject: [drinks] DRAFT minutes of the DRINKS design team call on Jun 06 2012

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:29:04 +0000

DRAFT minutes of the DRINKS design team call
============================================

Jun 06 2012, 10am - 11am eastern

Participants:
-------------

- Vikas Bhatia
- Manjul Maharishi
- David Schwartz 
- Dean Willis
- Alexander Mayrhofer
- Syed Ali
- Ken Cartwright
- Sumanth Channabasappa 

ACTION ITEMS
------------

1/ Provide updated documents to group (David)
2/ Provide text on internationalization (Alex)

Agenda
------

1/ Continue discussion of open issues

Minutes
-------

Sumanth opens the meeting.
Alex quickly runs thorugh last weeks minutes

David has worked on the changes regarding his action items, and has
posted some questions regarding the changes to the mailing list. 
He says he's is almost done with the editing, and will send back 
to the group once all changes are applied - aims at end of week.

His post to the mailing list is discussed:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/current/msg01195.html

He raises two open questions in that message:

a) Naming inconsistencies

Naming inconsistencies of the types as indicated in his email. He 
wants to put the abstract base type into the concrete type. 
discussion around the implications.

(bridge disconnected)

Ken: Better avoid adding base names, because would create long names

Alex: use "URISEDType" and "URIPubIdType", and leave all the others?

Another suggestion: "URISEDType" - "URIType" - consensus?

Unclear, David will think about the options.

b) RNType definition

David: Concern that this definition is a "u-turn"? RN could return LUF?
Ken: says that carriers maybe want the relation TN->RN outside of the
registry, and only use registry to provision RNs as PubID. When numbers
are ported in, no change to the registry needed.

More clarifications between David and Ken during the discussion. 

Syed: David saying that the use case is implicitely covered, but wants 
explicit to mention it?

Manjul: SEDFunctionType could be helpful here? 
David: RN is kind of a LUF - adding in another enumeration value 
would be a hack.

Conclusion: No change to the documents necessary.

David will finish off the text changes, and will send out updated 
versions of the documents this week. 

Next steps: 

There are two more open issues - internationalization and DoS. 
aiming at getting both things into the document asap.

i18n: rfc 2277 - alex will look into that, or an updated version. 

Timeline: have docs ready shortly before next week's call, and maybe 
decide about publishing  them shortly afterwards.

Meeting concludes - next call on Jun 13 2012.