FIND Working Group
		39th IETF, Munich

     Chairs: Patrik Faltstrom - paf@swip.net
             Roland Hedberg - Rolend.Hedberg@umdac.umu.edu
Mailinglist: find@bunyip.com
    Archive: ftp://ftp.bunyip.com/pub/mailing-lists/find.archive/

Summary:  The FIND working group reviewd all the documents in the
queue and agreed to go to last call as soon as was feasible.  There
are still a few problems with dealing with index objects as Mime
types and the group agreed after an examination of RFC 2048 that
they would have to create a new cip tree to handle different types
of cip index objects.  After this is apporved by the IESG, the
documents will have to be updated, but we all thought the Washington
DC meeting would be the last.

Minutes:

Taken by Sally Hambridge
All typos misunderstandings and misconceptions mine alone.

Find has several drafts out:
draft-ietf-find-cip-arch-00.txt (architecture draft)
draft-ietf-find-cip-hierarchy-01.txt
draft-ietf-find-cip-mime-00
draft-ietf-find-cip-soif-01.txt
draft-ietf-find-cip-tagged-02.txt
draft-ietf-find-cip-trans-00.txt
draft-ietf-find-soif-registry-00.txt

The cip-arch, cip-mime, and cip-trans docs fulfill the core
goals, and the soif and tagged drafts fulfill the goal of 
showing how cip would work on more than one index object.

There are still some problems:

1) Some index objects are in binary and some are text.  The group asked
if the mime type directory should be text or application.  Text becomes
problematic for especially soif objects, so we agreed it should stay
application, but later decided the cip needed it s own mime tree.

2) Should the different index-objects have different mime types?
The group decided that there should be a new family of mime types
since according to RFC 2048 we cannot have different index objects
as one mime type if they have different syntax.  This will take
IESG approval.  There was a suggestion that really good data would
included what mime-type it was.  CIP objects would then have a faceted
name - cip.indexobj and experimental cip  objects would sport the x
in front of the cip  x-cip.indexobj.

3) There are a few problems with 2.3.4 and 2.4 in cip-mime-00 and
and the solution is to remove the references to attribute/value pairs.

4) Security between servers - Patrik suggested that since objects would
be passed in mime that it made sense to use mime security rather than
to re-invent the wheel.

5) Aggregation - Still a bit of an unsolved problem.  There are two
problems - one was that a person might want to have heterogeneous types
be able to mesh, and the solution will be to add language to the
draft (if it is missiong) that this is dangerous and you do it at
your peril.

The second is that if you as an index server receive an object you do
not understand you should pass it up with the orginal DSI.  This language
is in the draft and will stay stated as such.

Action Items:

Patrik and Michael Mealling will sort out a draft defining the new cip tree.
The new cip tree will follow the ietf-tree rules.

All editors will then need to check their documents to make sure the
mime verbiage matches the new cip tree.

All documents will then go to last call on the amiling list as soon as
possible after that.

Documents will then go to last call in the IETF community.

For new stuff - the ADs will decide whether to spin up new groups .

Interoperability for each index-object was defferred to a possible
deployment working group.