Members:  Stephen Deerhake, Eberhard Lisse, Nigel Roberts, Peter Koch, Svitlana Tkachenko, Nick Wenban-Smith, Danko Jevtovic, Mirjana Tasic, Sean Copeland, Allan MacGillivray, Brent Carey

Participants:   

Observers and experts:   Naela Sarras

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Kim Carlson

Apologies:   Patricio Poblete,Jaap Akkeruis

Agenda: 

1 Welcome & Roll Call

2 Administrative Announcements (if any)

3 Action Items

  • Action items.

Bernard to update text, taking into account:

Differentiate when retirement plan is required and when advised.

  • Must/Shall/Should to be included next iteration

Action to check 112-117 for consistency, taking into account Patricio’s comments

Action Bernie: to take out “mutually agreeable” to check if value gets lost, only add where needed.

Action staff re Oversight Table: 

  • Make table in Google doc and make explicit what is meant by oversight and review.
  • Action all: fill in table 

4 Draft Document Review v1.32- Bernard

5  Oversight Google doc - 

6 AOB

7 Next Meetings

  • 23 May 11:00 UTC
  • 6 June 17:00 UTC

Documents:   

Recording:  Zoom replay

Transcript:  EN

Chat Transcript:

3:03:13 From Kimberly Carlson : Welcome to today’s cc PDP on retirement working group call on 9 May at 05:00 UTC. Calls will be recorded and transcribed. Attendance will be taken based on those connected to Zoom. We have received apologies from: Patricio Poblete and Jaap Akkeruis
23:05:17 From Kimberly Carlson : Yes, correct
23:05:20 From Kimberly Carlson : blocks 1 and 23
23:05:27 From Kimberly Carlson : 1 and 2
23:10:57 From Brent : yes
23:15:29 From Joke Braeken : If you would like to follow the live note-taking for today’s meeting: go to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fyj8vIMx1SAdRvbI414k7O_FYc3Gi2mRMIdpc7MHwkA/edit?usp=sharing
23:20:04 From bart.boswinkel : To put in continental law: the retirement is presented as an offer and the IFO accepts it: if IFO says yes: then it is agreed
23:37:30 From Peter Koch (DENIC) : Is there a defintion of the meaning of “shall”? When I hear references to “the RFC” (likely RFC 2119), it should be noted that these make sense in protocol specifications, not necessarily in other (procedural) text
23:38:24 From naela.sarras : Another editorial change. Please make reference to root zone consistent. We currently have root zone, Root Zone and just Root in sections we reviewed so far
23:39:27 From Bernard Turcotte : ok
23:42:58 From naela.sarras : @Bernie IANA’s preference would be root zone, I think.
23:43:09 From Bernard Turcotte : k
23:43:15 From Bernard Turcotte : will do
23:43:48 From Eberhard Lisse : I think we should capitalize it to Root Zone as it as term of art
23:45:32 From Eberhard Lisse : I think we should capitalize ALL terms of art throughout.
23:45:49 From bart.boswinkel : @ Peter: at the same time you see such a description in policy documents as well
23:47:27 From Eberhard Lisse : We can put these in the glossary :-)-O
23:47:34 From Peter Koch (DENIC) : @bart: interpretations per RFC 2119 need to be explicit (by reference to that RFC); otherwise it’s bad habit that doesn’t necessarily have to be copied ;-)
23:47:59 From bart.boswinkel : I agree with that
23:48:15 From Peter Koch (DENIC) : alternatively, one ought (pun intended) to come up with one’s oin set of definitions
23:48:19 From bart.boswinkel : we need to include the refrence
23:48:36 From bart.boswinkel : to the document and include it defeintely
23:49:04 From Eberhard Lisse : Yes, we can mention RFC 2119
23:50:16 From Peter Koch (DENIC) : I doubt that the RFC 2119 meanings make sense, but we can look at that in more detail later
23:53:57 From naela.sarras : Allan’s argument about communication plan if not requesting an extension makes sense
23:54:12 From Danko Jevtovic : gt allan
23:54:22 From Danko Jevtovic : good point
23:56:59 From Bernard Turcotte : shall
23:59:36 From Kimberly Carlson : Two more meetings, May 23 and June 6
00:01:41 From naela.sarras : @bart: are we meant to fill in the oversight table ?
00:02:00 From Bernard Turcotte : bye all
00:02:00 From bart.boswinkel : @ NAlea, yes and raise concerns if any
00:02:06 From naela.sarras : Excellent, thanks
00:02:15 From bart.boswinkel : I’ll re-circulate the link again
00:02:21 From Danko Jevtovic : thanks *.*
00:02:21 From bart.boswinkel : ( the correct one)
00:02:23 From Kimberly Carlson : Thank you all, bye
00:02:42 From naela.sarras : bye all
00:02:44 From Joke Braeken : bye all. thank you
00:02:46 From Sean Copeland : Night all
00:02:51 From Brent : bye

  • No labels