CURRENT MEETING REPORT


Minutes of the Service Location Working Group (svrloc)

Reported by John Veizades, TGV, Inc.


The opening goal of the Service Location Working Group meeting was a 
commitment by the chair to complete the Service Location Protocol 
draft for submission to the IESG for consideration as a proposed 
standard.  The area director was very supportive of this goal.

The working group went thought the list of changes since the last 
Internet Draft and those changes being consider by the authors for the 
next draft.  These changes included:

o The reintroduction of the concept of a naming authority, that is a 
  standardization entity that defines the syntax of attribute/value 
  information.
o  The default standardization authority is the IANA.  The proposal of 
   adding additional naming authorities using an escape mechanism 
   in the scheme was accepted by the working group.

The concept of other address families was discussed and the URL 
semantics allow for the inclusion of other address family specification  
in the definition of URLs.  There was a concern that there is no URL 
syntax for Ipv6.  The chair will address this issue with the authors of 
the URL RFC.

The character encoding identification is now using the MIBEnum values 
as identified by IANA for character encoding (http://www.isi.edu/in-
notes/iana/assignments/character-sets).  This allows for a defined 
numerical representation of all known character encodings.

Questions on the Internet Draft were answered and the working group 
was asked for consensus to move forward to proposed standard and, 
barring the changes that were identified by the authors, the internet 
draft will move forward to proposed standard after the next internet 
draft.

The working group began the process of formalizing the mechanism 
that will be used to define a new scheme within the service location 
protocol.  The following items are needed for the definition of a scheme:

o  Scheme service description-what the service provides
o  Scheme name-text string identifying the scheme registered with 
   IANA
o  Multicast Address for schemes
o  Attributes Name
o  Attribute Description
o  Value list
o  Value Description
o  Acceptable ranges for values
o  Attribute relationship
o  Administrative contact

This information would be an RFC.  There was some discussion of how 
these RFCs would be evaluated for completeness and correctness.  It was 
suggested that the working group should stay active for sometime to 
evaluate these proposals.

The working group attempted to begin the description of several 
schemes.  They chose the mailbox and mail relay schemes.  The 
following is the list of attributes for each:

o  mailbox
o  protocol:  IMAP, POP2, POP3
o  user: username
o  mailrelay
o  protocol: SMTP
o  username:
o  message size limit: yes, no
o  message size: integer
o  protocol extensions supported: list of extensions