Members:  Stephen Deerhake, Eberhard Lisse, Barrak Otieno, Kristina Hakobyan, Svitlana Tkachenko, Brent Carey, Peter Koch, Vadim Mikhaylov, Nick Wenban Smith, Mirjana Tasic, Sean Copeland


Observers and experts:   Kim Davies, Jaap Akkeruis, Naela Sarras (audio only)

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Kim Carlson


Agenda: Agenda.pdf


Recording:  Zoom

Transcript:  EN

Chat Transcript:

11:00:47 From Kimberly Carlson : Welcome to today’s cc PDP Retirement Working Group on 11 April at 17:00 UTC. We have apologies from: Danko Jevtović, Peter Van Roste, Nigel Roberts (late)
11:00:58 From nickw : Hi everyone
11:01:29 From Kimberly Carlson : Unlike on AC, we can see everyone even those on audio only
11:01:45 From Bernard : not for me
11:01:48 From nickw : I'm sorry I didn't get to read any of the papers sent recently. Pretty please could we have those a bit more in advance in future?
11:01:51 From Kimberly Carlson : nothing, thank you
11:02:10 From Joke Braeken : For those who just joined: Should you wish to follow the live note taking during today’s meeting, go to
11:02:10 From Allan MacGillivray : +1 to Nick
11:02:37 From nickw : ok tx Bart
11:02:48 From bart.boswinkel : Apologies for sending out late
11:03:01 From sveta : Hello all!
11:21:57 From Kim Davies : “specific” reasoning, perhaps?
11:22:03 From Allan MacGillivray : perhaps 'a rationale'
11:22:47 From Stephen Deerhake : Given the distance between Allan and El's position, I think we could usefully kick this around on the list.
11:23:18 From Allan MacGillivray : It is the word 'detailed' that causes me concern. I can accept 'a rationale' or 'an explanation'
11:23:36 From nickw : I'd be happy with any language provided the intent comes across that IFO can't just say 'no' and the registry manager doesn't have a handle on why
11:27:52 From Stephen Deerhake : RFC definitions would work...
11:28:08 From Stephen Deerhake : (For "MUST", "SHALL", etc.)
11:28:09 From nickw : Agree with Bart on that
11:28:16 From Bernard : RFC 2119 - IETF
11:28:36 From Bernard : yes
11:28:37 From nickw : Let's no reinvent the wheel on terminology
11:28:37 From jaap : yup
11:29:13 From jaap : Note ut requires to us the upper case version. Lower case doesn’t count
11:29:28 From Allan MacGillivray : I think that we should restict ourselves to the 'mandatory' use of 'shall' and the permissive use of 'may' and avoid using the confusing 'must'.
11:29:51 From Peter Koch : RFC 2119 language makes much sense in protocol specifications, not necessarily in instruction prose
11:41:49 From ppoblete : Changing a policy “in the moment” is just not the way to handle an emergency situation
11:41:55 From ppoblete : Any change takes years
11:45:07 From bart.boswinkel : In anthropological terms: self-fulfilling prophecy
11:54:49 From Peter Koch : SSAC does have a history of saying “There is a problem”, so getting a card blanche out of there is difficult, however: look at the KSK rollover advice, the first, IIRC, case with statements of dissent
11:55:37 From Stephen Deerhake : The Chair is happy to do that if the WG wishes to investigate this option.
11:56:22 From Allan MacGillivray : I think its premature to reach out to the SSAC. I think we will end up removing the whole provision.
11:56:52 From Bernard : agree with Peter
11:57:04 From Peter Koch : agree with Allan, premature
11:57:20 From el : agree with Allan, remove the lines
12:00:27 From Barrack Otieno : none from me
12:00:50 From Barrack Otieno : i agree with El, quality was good
12:01:33 From Kimberly Carlson : you are correct
12:01:48 From Bernard : bye all
12:01:53 From Kimberly Carlson : Monday, 24 June, blocks 1 and 2
12:02:10 From Kristina Hakobyan : Thank you, have a nice rest of the day)
12:02:14 From jaap : bye all
12:02:15 From Brent : bye
12:02:16 From ppoblete : Good bye
12:02:18 From Vadim Mikhaylov : bye thnx
12:02:18 From Barrack Otieno : bye
12:02:18 From Sean Copeland : bye

  • No labels