From francisco.arias@icann.org Thu Jun 2 15:51:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E44E089E for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:51:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qKcjfjgSiPRH for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C52E0879 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:51:38 -0700 From: Francisco Arias To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:51:36 -0700 Thread-Topic: Test message Thread-Index: Acwhd6GIN5mNCjsvRy2oXxDOWkSszw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] Test message X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:51:40 -0000 Please ignore. __ Francisco From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Fri Jun 3 08:05:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietf.org Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 50AC5E070F; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:05:43 -0700 (PDT) From: IETF Secretariat To: IETF Announcement list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20110603150543.50AC5E070F@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] New Non-WG Mailing List: weirds -- WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:05:43 -0000 A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: weirds@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds Description: This list is intended for discussion about work on a next-generation WHOIS technology at the IETF. For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From andy@hxr.us Fri Jun 3 10:58:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E803E0726 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:58:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tm25OAdBYUPI for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E8FE065B for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so3264252qyk.10 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.106.5 with SMTP id v5mr1746769qco.12.1307123893813; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host-252.203.arin.net (host-252-203.arin.net [192.149.252.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e28sm1136126qck.42.2011.06.03.10.58.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:58:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Newton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:58:12 -0400 Message-Id: To: weirds@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [weirds] draft-newton-weirds-arin-whoisrws-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:58:18 -0000 FYI... A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories.=20 =20 Title : ARIN's RESTful Web Service for Whois Data=20 Author(s) : Andrew Lee Newton=20 Filename : draft-newton-weirds-arin-whoisrws-00.txt=20 Pages : 17=20 Date : 2011-06-03=20 =20 This document describes the RESTful Web Service for Whois data as=20 implemented and fielded by the American Registry for Internet Numbers=20 (ARIN). ARIN calls this service Whois-RWS.=20 =20 The purpose of this document is to facilitate discussion and serve as=20 input into a standards process in this area, currently being=20 discussed on the WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data=20 Service (WEIRDS) mailing list=20 (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds).=20 =20 Please excuse this very rough initial draft. It is roughly based on=20 information currently published on ARIN's website. However, future=20 revisions of this document are planned, including discussions on=20 lessons learned by ARIN from the deployment of Whois-RWS and thoughts=20 on a future, unified standard.=20 =20 =20 A URL for this Internet-Draft is:=20 = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-weirds-arin-whoisrws-00.t= xt=20 =20 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:=20 ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/=20 =20 This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:=20 = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-weirds-arin-whoisrws-00.tx= t=20= From francisco.arias@icann.org Fri Jun 3 16:53:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3773E0664 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5QVGVE8xIop3 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C404E0627 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:53:42 -0700 From: Francisco Arias To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:53:40 -0700 Thread-Topic: draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt Thread-Index: AcwiSXeDi0E4RxGRRmStzN9se9z/Ww== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110603235148.16325.16996.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] FW: draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:53:43 -0000 On 6/3/11 4:51 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: >A new version of I-D, draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt has been >successfully submitted by Francisco Arias and posted to the IETF >repository. > >Filename: draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd >Revision: 00 >Title: A RESTful Web Service for Domain Name Registration Data >(RWS-DNRD) >Creation date: 2011-06-04 >WG ID: Individual Submission >Number of pages: 18 > >Abstract: > This document describes a pilot RESTful Web Service for querying > Domain Name Registration Data (aka WHOIS data). > > The purpose of this document is to facilitate discussion and serve as > input into a standards process in this area, currently being > discussed on the WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data > Service (WEIRDS) mailing list > (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds). > > =20 > =20 > > >The IETF Secretariat From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 6 10:15:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D6011E81B1 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ALplGMOCuTxD for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5161411E8150 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:46 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:46 -0700 Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00.txt Thread-Index: AcwkbUpNeRHnsLlrQv2a11oyPghwrAAAA67Q Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C9193FCEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] FW: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:15:51 -0000 --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C9193FCEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C9193FCEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (208.83.136.59) by ht2.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.159.2; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:09 -0700 Received: from mail.ietf.org ?(mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.30]) by mail.cloudmark.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p56HF4ns024431 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:04 -0700 (envelope-from internet-drafts@ietf.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA72411E81B6 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aBM2RRXDc0Qi for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D6611E81B0; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" CC: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:15:02 -0700 Subject: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00.txt Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00.txt Thread-Index: AcwkbUpNeRHnsLlrQv2a11oyPghwrA== Message-ID: <20110606171502.30127.24339.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: spite.corp.cloudmark.com X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: ietf.org X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (spite.corp.cloudmark.com: domain of internet-drafts@ietf.org designates 64.170.98.30 as permitted sender) receiver=spite.corp.cloudmark.com; client-ip=64.170.98.30; helo=mail.cloudmark.com; x-virus-scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 QSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWt1Y2hlcmF3eS13ZWlyZHMtcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRz LTAwLnR4dCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IE11cnJheSBLdWNoZXJh d3kgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KDQpGaWxlbmFtZToJIGRyYWZ0 LWt1Y2hlcmF3eS13ZWlyZHMtcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJIDAwDQpUaXRsZToJCSBS ZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgRm9yIEludGVybmV0IFJlZ2lzdHJ5IFNlcnZpY2VzDQpDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRl OgkgMjAxMS0wNi0wNg0KV0cgSUQ6CQkgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpOdW1iZXIgb2Yg cGFnZXM6IDYNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGVudW1lcmF0ZXMgYSBiYXNl IHNldCBvZiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgYmUNCiAgIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIGFueSBz eXN0ZW0gdGhhdCBwcm92aWRlcyByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZm9yDQogICBJbnRl cm5ldCBlbnRpdGllcywgYmUgdGhleSBuZXR3b3JrIGFzc2lnbm1lbnRzIG9yIGRvbWFpbiBuYW1l DQogICBhc3NpZ25tZW50cy4gIFNvbWUgb2YgdGhlc2UsIGluIHR1cm4sIHdpbGwgZGVmaW5lIHJl cXVpcmVtZW50cyBmb3INCiAgIHJlZ2lzdHJhcnM7IHRoaXMsIGhvd2V2ZXIsIGlzIGFuIGlzc3Vl IG91dHNpZGUgb2YgdGhlIHNjb3BlIG9mIHRoaXMNCiAgIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg== --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C9193FCEXCHC2corpclo_-- From bfiorell@ripe.net Sat Jun 11 02:52:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5E011E8088 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGhoOyoDJFBh for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1341]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36D211E8090 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QVKs3-0001Lp-F1 for weirds@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:52:48 +0200 Received: from [193.0.21.125] (helo=POOL06-861.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QVKs3-0002aM-9m for weirds@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:52:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4DF33AF2.9010004@ripe.net> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:52:50 +0200 From: Benedetto Fiorelli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080103070308020800060006" X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-RIPE-Signature: c5f357f80285b9a27a15b51c4a3ee2fce08fb2c55cef587f21f862d9aef25535 Subject: [weirds] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws-00.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:52:51 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080103070308020800060006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws-00.txt Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:36:13 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: bfiorell@ripe.net CC: bfiorell@ripe.net A new version of I-D, draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Benedetto Fiorelli and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws Revision: 00 Title: The RIPE Database REST API Creation date: 2011-06-09 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 9 Abstract: This document describes the RIPE Database REST API. The purpose of this document is to facilitate discussion and serve as input into a standards process in this area, currently being discussed on the WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) mailing list (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds). The IETF Secretariat --------------080103070308020800060006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws-00.txt
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:36:13 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: bfiorell@ripe.net
CC: bfiorell@ripe.net 


A new version of I-D, draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Benedetto Fiorelli and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws
Revision:	 00
Title:		 The RIPE Database REST API
Creation date:	 2011-06-09
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 9

Abstract:
   This document describes the RIPE Database REST API.

   The purpose of this document is to facilitate discussion and serve as
   input into a standards process in this area, currently being
   discussed on the WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data
   Service (WEIRDS) mailing list
   (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds).

                                                                                  


The IETF Secretariat
--------------080103070308020800060006-- From andy@hxr.us Mon Jun 13 09:51:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03B611E8149 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvYUoaBsrzTw for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-px0-f182.google.com (mail-px0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36C411E8154 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pxi20 with SMTP id 20so3489953pxi.27 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.5.234 with SMTP id v10mr2171278pbv.132.1307983784062; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.35.165.42] ([192.35.165.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i7sm4784758pbj.10.2011.06.13.09.49.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Newton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:49:40 -0400 Message-Id: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> To: weirds@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:51:15 -0000 My comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 > 4.1 > 1. A client SHOULD be able to handle replies that contain data = that > are not exclusively 7-bit clean. Would we want to go further and lock this down to UTF-8 as mandatory to = support... others optional? > 2. A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server > provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP = query > prior to a TCP query. >=20 > With respect to a UDP service, a subset of the service could be > implemented via the DNS, using [EXPAND-DNS]. >=20 I'm not really sure what is envisioned here, but I would assume to make = this useful in any sort of way there would have to be mandatory = server-side support. I really don't think we should be doing this. It = complicates the model, and people who write clients will now have to = find DNS libraries. And while to some of us that might sound like a = small barrier, to the people we are aiming this at such a thing is not = easy to understand or come by. As I've been discussing Whois-RWS and = demoing over the past year, one of the big benefits is that I could = demonstrate the concepts using a Web-browser. I've always wanted as a = goal for it to be possible to write a client in bash with not much more = than curl or xsltproc. > 4.2. Servers >=20 > 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a > defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other security > attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from = a > particular source MUST NOT be done. >=20 If this is meant to say that we are developing a protocol for the open = publication of records, then I think new wording is needed. But the = current wording infringes upon an operators view of what constitutes an = abusive user and necessary corrective measures. Its all very subjective, = and to place MUST language around it only invites disagreements between = people doing things incorrectly and those having to deal with many = peoples doing things incorrectly. > 2. A server MUST reply in a univerally standard format; free-form > replies MUST NOT be used, although the standard format may have > provisions for some fields that are free-form within it. In > particular: >=20 > * All date and/or time fields MUST be formatted as per > [DATETIME]. >=20 I think the date/time format should be left to the schema language used = in the standard. Which leads into this... > 3. NOTE: The standard format is expected to be a significant = portion > of the work on the way to describing a new overall WHOIS > specification. In any case, machine-parsability of replies is > crucial to the success of this work. > =20 With the risk of getting into a data serialization religious debate, I = think we should lock down the standard format to XML. And my reason for = this is that XML can be made to work seamlessly with a web browser using = XSLT (well, modern browsers). Again, the use of demoing Whois-RWS with a = web browser has been very beneficial with getting people to understand = this area of work. -andy= From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 13 10:04:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D62011E8171 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJiehyiR7SvE for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFD811E8172 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:04:51 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:04:50 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acwp6h523EkicRz6Td6/JQuDjdk37gAACwNQ Message-ID: References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> In-Reply-To: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:04:52 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andy Newton > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:50 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >=20 > > 4.1 > > 1. A client SHOULD be able to handle replies that contain data that > > are not exclusively 7-bit clean. >=20 > Would we want to go further and lock this down to UTF-8 as mandatory to > support... others optional? Works for me. This (and all the other requirements I listed) are just star= ting points for discussion. > > 2. A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server > > provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP query > > prior to a TCP query. > > > > With respect to a UDP service, a subset of the service could be > > implemented via the DNS, using [EXPAND-DNS]. >=20 > I'm not really sure what is envisioned here, but I would assume to make > this useful in any sort of way there would have to be mandatory server- > side support. I really don't think we should be doing this. It > complicates the model, and people who write clients will now have to > find DNS libraries. And while to some of us that might sound like a > small barrier, to the people we are aiming this at such a thing is not > easy to understand or come by. As I've been discussing Whois-RWS and > demoing over the past year, one of the big benefits is that I could > demonstrate the concepts using a Web-browser. I've always wanted as a > goal for it to be possible to write a client in bash with not much more > than curl or xsltproc. The UDP idea comes from the rate at which some commercial evaluation servic= es hit WHOIS servers with high query rates and seeks to reduce the network = load. We don't have to do that if it's a lot harder than the problem it so= lves. The DNS idea comes from some hallway track chatter at the last ICANN meetin= g. One registrar I talked to would be fine providing information that is h= elpful to security needs without revealing privacy data and thought adding = them to the DNS would be easiest. The intent would be to provide that limi= ted set of information via the DNS and also provide full WHOIS service via = more conventional means like TCP. The DNS wouldn't be rate-limited for pri= vacy reasons, but the full service could be. The limited information that = would be made available is just stuff like the registration/change date, th= e registered nameservers, the ID of the registrar, etc., but not any of the= personal information of the registrant. Those clients that want that spec= ific subset of information will probably have no problem adapting to a DNS-= based (or really, any UDP-based) service, but there's no expectation that e= verybody will change to DNS for the full service. > > 4.2. Servers > > > > 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a > > defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other security > > attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a > > particular source MUST NOT be done. > > If this is meant to say that we are developing a protocol for the open > publication of records, then I think new wording is needed. But the > current wording infringes upon an operators view of what constitutes an > abusive user and necessary corrective measures. Its all very > subjective, and to place MUST language around it only invites > disagreements between people doing things incorrectly and those having > to deal with many peoples doing things incorrectly. I'm happy to rework the requirement. What I'm hoping to discourage is the = practice of disallowing queries from sites on the automatic presumption tha= t just about any client making the query is trolling data for the purpose o= f poaching customers. This interferes with legitimate security operations,= and it is quite frequent. It might be enough to have informational provis= ions for making some kind of arrangements out-of-band between security-base= d services that want to consume this data and the WHOIS providers. > > 3. NOTE: The standard format is expected to be a significant portio= n > > of the work on the way to describing a new overall WHOIS > > specification. In any case, machine-parsability of replies is > > crucial to the success of this work. > > > With the risk of getting into a data serialization religious debate, I > think we should lock down the standard format to XML. And my reason for > this is that XML can be made to work seamlessly with a web browser > using XSLT (well, modern browsers). Again, the use of demoing Whois-RWS > with a web browser has been very beneficial with getting people to > understand this area of work. XML works for me. I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like, so if XML has s= ome standard date/time format, then I'm fine with using that instead of RFC= 3339. -MSK From andy@hxr.us Mon Jun 13 11:49:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8021611E80AA for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hMC3XizccTKL for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDBC11E80BE for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so2458105pvh.31 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.37.3 with SMTP id u3mr2416782pbj.456.1307990997086; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.35.165.42] ([192.35.165.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm4666087pbk.61.2011.06.13.11.49.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:49:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> To: Murray S. Kucherawy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:49:58 -0000 On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> 2. A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server >>> provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP = query >>> prior to a TCP query. >>>=20 >>> With respect to a UDP service, a subset of the service could be >>> implemented via the DNS, using [EXPAND-DNS]. >>=20 >> I'm not really sure what is envisioned here, but I would assume to = make >> this useful in any sort of way there would have to be mandatory = server- >> side support. I really don't think we should be doing this. It >> complicates the model, and people who write clients will now have to >> find DNS libraries. And while to some of us that might sound like a >> small barrier, to the people we are aiming this at such a thing is = not >> easy to understand or come by. As I've been discussing Whois-RWS and >> demoing over the past year, one of the big benefits is that I could >> demonstrate the concepts using a Web-browser. I've always wanted as a >> goal for it to be possible to write a client in bash with not much = more >> than curl or xsltproc. >=20 > The UDP idea comes from the rate at which some commercial evaluation = services hit WHOIS servers with high query rates and seeks to reduce the = network load. We don't have to do that if it's a lot harder than the = problem it solves. >=20 > The DNS idea comes from some hallway track chatter at the last ICANN = meeting. One registrar I talked to would be fine providing information = that is helpful to security needs without revealing privacy data and = thought adding them to the DNS would be easiest. The intent would be to = provide that limited set of information via the DNS and also provide = full WHOIS service via more conventional means like TCP. The DNS = wouldn't be rate-limited for privacy reasons, but the full service could = be. The limited information that would be made available is just stuff = like the registration/change date, the registered nameservers, the ID of = the registrar, etc., but not any of the personal information of the = registrant. Those clients that want that specific subset of information = will probably have no problem adapting to a DNS-based (or really, any = UDP-based) service, but there's no expectation that everybody will = change to DNS for the full service. >=20 Well, there's a lot I could say about this if backed into a corner. But = for now, I'll leave it with "We don't have to do that if it's a lot = harder than the problem it solves." At the very least, this should be = pushed off until our core work is finished. >>> 4.2. Servers >>>=20 >>> 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a >>> defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other = security >>> attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from = a >>> particular source MUST NOT be done. >>=20 >> If this is meant to say that we are developing a protocol for the = open >> publication of records, then I think new wording is needed. But the >> current wording infringes upon an operators view of what constitutes = an >> abusive user and necessary corrective measures. Its all very >> subjective, and to place MUST language around it only invites >> disagreements between people doing things incorrectly and those = having >> to deal with many peoples doing things incorrectly. >=20 > I'm happy to rework the requirement. What I'm hoping to discourage is = the practice of disallowing queries from sites on the automatic = presumption that just about any client making the query is trolling data = for the purpose of poaching customers. This interferes with legitimate = security operations, and it is quite frequent. It might be enough to = have informational provisions for making some kind of arrangements = out-of-band between security-based services that want to consume this = data and the WHOIS providers. I hear ya. And I support what you are getting at. I'll see about = formulating some text to help here. Perhaps we could note that some service operators also have bulk whois = access, and therefore have legitimate reasons for targetting abuses = attempting to get around bulk whois AUPs. >=20 >>> 3. NOTE: The standard format is expected to be a significant = portion >>> of the work on the way to describing a new overall WHOIS >>> specification. In any case, machine-parsability of replies is >>> crucial to the success of this work. >>>=20 >> With the risk of getting into a data serialization religious debate, = I >> think we should lock down the standard format to XML. And my reason = for >> this is that XML can be made to work seamlessly with a web browser >> using XSLT (well, modern browsers). Again, the use of demoing = Whois-RWS >> with a web browser has been very beneficial with getting people to >> understand this area of work. >=20 > XML works for me. I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like, so if XML = has some standard date/time format, then I'm fine with using that = instead of RFC3339. XML Schema uses a profile of ISO 8601. RelaxNG defers to XML Schema. = RFC3339 is also a profile of ISO 8601. The gulf is not that wide here, = but I worry about tools that assume a subtle difference in format. Thanks. -andy=20 From bfiorell@ripe.net Tue Jun 14 04:06:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A1811E808A for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:06:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8Zv9O3Gp-UF for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1341]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236CA11E8071 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.23.4]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QWRSL-0007Es-2V for weirds@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:06:50 +0200 Received: from [193.0.21.125] (helo=POOL06-861.local) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QWRSK-0005AB-TX for weirds@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:06:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4DF740D2.7050303@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:06:58 +0200 From: Benedetto Fiorelli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: c5f357f80285b9a27a15b51c4a3ee2fc3ee868e716306a2ca3743e106d0a0b84 Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:06:53 -0000 On 6/13/11 7:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Newton >> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:50 AM >> To: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >> >>> 4.1 >>> 1. A client SHOULD be able to handle replies that contain data that >>> are not exclusively 7-bit clean. >> Would we want to go further and lock this down to UTF-8 as mandatory to >> support... others optional? > Works for me. This (and all the other requirements I listed) are just starting points for discussion. > This is something that could be added also to the RIPE draft, actually the RIPE RESTful API adopt UTF-8 encoding. >>> 4.2. Servers >>> >>> 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a >>> defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other security >>> attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a >>> particular source MUST NOT be done. >> If this is meant to say that we are developing a protocol for the open >> publication of records, then I think new wording is needed. But the >> current wording infringes upon an operators view of what constitutes an >> abusive user and necessary corrective measures. Its all very >> subjective, and to place MUST language around it only invites >> disagreements between people doing things incorrectly and those having >> to deal with many peoples doing things incorrectly. > I'm happy to rework the requirement. What I'm hoping to discourage is the practice of disallowing queries from sites on the automatic presumption that just about any client making the query is trolling data for the purpose of poaching customers. This interferes with legitimate security operations, and it is quite frequent. It might be enough to have informational provisions for making some kind of arrangements out-of-band between security-based services that want to consume this data and the WHOIS providers. Imho it is important to adopt a framework for "terms and conditions" defined also in terms of explicit "acceptable use policies" that the WEIRDS systems could publish and enforce in order to avoid abuse/misuse to happen at all. Stating that systems must accept and process any number of request and than keep the door open to generic anti-DoS and anti-abuse mechanism may translate into: -behaviours that are difficult for clients to predict and test, -different implementations of blocking (anti-abuse) policies in different Registries, -something not always true because there may be services that must have limited access even though being public, see for example the actual blocking policies being enforced on queries that return personal data. In other words from a client point of view it may be better to have a contract that defines explicit terms on usage than just knowing that in theory any use is unlimited but in practice it may be blocked whenever considered abusive. So I wouldn't even exclude for some services to define rate limits in terms simple enough to be predictable and testable by clients. Another reason for having different usage policies on different services is simply that different interfaces and protocols have different qualities, for example REST and in general web services are perfect for operations that are 'online', suitable within HTTP limits of timeout, reliability, etc. Other interfaces or frameworks can be more adequate and convenient for processes that are 'batch', 'bulk', 'data mining' etc. -Benedetto From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Jun 14 07:32:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E8C11E8148 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:32:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9dAy29HmzxR for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C4511E8131 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD1FB1ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:32:27 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:32:45 -0000 On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:49:53PM -0400, Andy Newton wrote: > > Well, there's a lot I could say about this if backed into a > corner. But for now, I'll leave it with "We don't have to do that if > it's a lot harder than the problem it solves." At the very least, > this should be pushed off until our core work is finished. I'm not sure I completely agree. That is, I think it's something that needs to be considered carefully from the outset and included in all of the basic thinking that amounts to the core work. If we don't keep this in mind from the outset, we'll find ourselves using a big hammer later to address it. It might well be that the "a lot harder" stipulation is correct, but I'd rather address that possibility early than leave it late and discover we're in a deep hole. > > XML works for me. I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like, so if XML has some standard date/time format, then I'm fine with using that instead of RFC3339. > > XML Schema uses a profile of ISO 8601. RelaxNG defers to XML Schema. RFC3339 is also a profile of ISO 8601. The gulf is not that wide here, but I worry about tools that assume a subtle difference in format. > Given the tendency of RESTful things to be built atop JSON instead of XML, why aren't we considering JSON for this? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Tue Jun 14 07:46:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5579E801E for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vV9DtAK9onpa for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D319E801C for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.63.74.90] (staffgw.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net [82.68.174.118]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2240E712BC9; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:46:28 +0000 (UTC) From: Gavin Brown To: Andrew Sullivan In-Reply-To: <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: CentralNic Ltd Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:46:27 +0100 Message-ID: <1308062787.22854.31.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 (2.28.3-1.fc12) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:46:30 -0000 > Given the tendency of RESTful things to be built atop JSON instead of > XML, why aren't we considering JSON for this? Here's one reason why I'd prefer XML: schemas. JSON has them but they are not mature yet (there is a draft, draft-zyp-json-schema, see http://json-schema.org/). Using XML and having a schema means that both client and server can validate output, usually fairly simply. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. From andy@hxr.us Tue Jun 14 08:03:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B9D11E813E for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:03:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XTM6D4Osql+A for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-px0-f182.google.com (mail-px0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D669D11E80C0 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pxi20 with SMTP id 20so4245638pxi.27 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.186.20 with SMTP id j20mr627774wff.135.1308063799566; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.35.165.42] ([192.35.165.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d15sm7181041wfl.18.2011.06.14.08.03.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:03:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:03:20 -0000 On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:49:53PM -0400, Andy Newton wrote: >>=20 >> Well, there's a lot I could say about this if backed into a >> corner. But for now, I'll leave it with "We don't have to do that if >> it's a lot harder than the problem it solves." At the very least, >> this should be pushed off until our core work is finished. >=20 > I'm not sure I completely agree. That is, I think it's something that > needs to be considered carefully from the outset and included in all > of the basic thinking that amounts to the core work. If we don't keep > this in mind from the outset, we'll find ourselves using a big hammer > later to address it. >=20 > It might well be that the "a lot harder" stipulation is correct, but > I'd rather address that possibility early than leave it late and > discover we're in a deep hole. Honestly, I'm not following you here. But let me speak to one of the issues I perceive hinders IRIS. It's got = too much neato stuff in it that is mandatory. None of the single = technologies found in IRIS are that cumbersome or hard to implement on = their own, but taken together in their mandatory-to-implement form they = constitute an unacceptable hurdle. I'd prefer not to hinder this effort = with non-HTTP, non-REST mechanisms. Also see my statement below about = the usefulness of web browsers. >>> XML works for me. I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like, so if = XML has some standard date/time format, then I'm fine with using that = instead of RFC3339. >>=20 >> XML Schema uses a profile of ISO 8601. RelaxNG defers to XML Schema. = RFC3339 is also a profile of ISO 8601. The gulf is not that wide here, = but I worry about tools that assume a subtle difference in format. >>=20 >=20 > Given the tendency of RESTful things to be built atop JSON instead of > XML, why aren't we considering JSON for this?=20 As I stated previously, XML can be styled with XSLT in any modern web = browser. That's what we do at ARIN. Our web query form redirects to a = pure RESTful call, which renders XML in a browser. That, to the best of = my knowledge, cannot be done with JSON without a lot of custom = Javascript code. That ability to demonstrate Whois-RWS using a = web-browser has been very beneficial for us. It demonstrates the power = of a RESTful web service to non-programmers. Not that I don't support JSON. At ARIN we do XML and JSON and plain text = and XHMTL with our RESTful web service. I'm just suggesting the XML = serialization be the mandatory-to-implement version. I'm not against a = JSON version at all.=20 We may want to additionally address the mechanism to request a specific = format. One would think that the Accept header would satisfy, but there = are complications with that which is why a lot of RESTful web services = have resorted to using file extension mechanisms, which also have their = warts. -andy= From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Jun 14 08:55:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E95B11E8090 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:55:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HpBQ4bkD3cYi for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA4C228019 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27F041ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:55:08 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110614155507.GI65259@shinkuro.com> Mail-Followup-To: weirds@ietf.org References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:55:15 -0000 On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:03:15AM -0400, Andy Newton wrote: > > I'm not sure I completely agree. That is, I think it's something that > > needs to be considered carefully from the outset and included in all > > of the basic thinking that amounts to the core work. If we don't keep > > this in mind from the outset, we'll find ourselves using a big hammer > > later to address it. > > > > It might well be that the "a lot harder" stipulation is correct, but > > I'd rather address that possibility early than leave it late and > > discover we're in a deep hole. > > Honestly, I'm not following you here. What I'm saying is that the _first_ part of our basic work is not to deliver answers in a web page -- we've already determined that people can do that -- but to decide the basic set of functionality. At least for high-volume cases, something lighter than http may be necessary, and I'm anxious that we not prejudge that requirement from the beginning as "nice to have". It might be an effective requirement for the protocol work, because even if it doesn't turn out to be mandatory to implement (I'm fairly sure it need not be), it might constrain what we can depend on in the rest of our specification. > But let me speak to one of the issues I perceive hinders IRIS. It's > got too much neato stuff in it that is mandatory. None of the single > technologies found in IRIS are that cumbersome or hard to implement > on their own, but taken together in their mandatory-to-implement > form they constitute an unacceptable hurdle. I get that objection, and I'm not saying, "We need|don't need X." I'm instead asking for arguments in each direction so that we address the real use cases that drive this work. A significant number of people want real-time access to the data this service is supposed to offer, and I suspect that the operators of data sources are going to get cranky about overhead if they don't have another option. How might that other option affect what we can do? > be done with JSON without a lot of custom Javascript code. That > ability to demonstrate Whois-RWS using a web-browser has been very > beneficial for us. It demonstrates the power of a RESTful web > service to non-programmers. I fully appreciate the value of the ability to demonstrate something in a web browser. But if we're going to go to the trouble of standardizing something, I think we need something stronger than "Easy demonstration" as a premise. (I'd probably buy the JSON-sucks-in-browsers argument, but only if we also conclude that browsers are the primary target for many of these cases. Are they? The requirements document doesn't say so yet, and I can't tell.) I'm not trying to be religious about anything (note that I haven't developed even one of the examples). I'm just trying to make sure we specify things in line with all the needs of the client community we're planning to serve, so that we don't later have to fill the hole. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From andy@hxr.us Tue Jun 14 09:34:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C33611E808B for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atJYGrk3kO+K for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7C211E807F for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so2974137pvh.31 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.16.135 with SMTP id g7mr3101379pbd.486.1308069265098; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.35.165.42] ([192.35.165.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k4sm5685784pbl.27.2011.06.14.09.34.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20110614155507.GI65259@shinkuro.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:34:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <81756D90-F6EF-4CCC-BAFE-DAAF93098033@hxr.us> References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> <6B63E9F2-1EB2-42DE-916E-2BAC48379A3D@hxr.us> <20110614143227.GF65259@shinkuro.com> <20110614155507.GI65259@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:34:26 -0000 On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > What I'm saying is that the _first_ part of our basic work is not to > deliver answers in a web page -- we've already determined that people > can do that -- but to decide the basic set of functionality. At least > for high-volume cases, something lighter than http may be necessary, > and I'm anxious that we not prejudge that requirement from the > beginning as "nice to have". It might be an effective requirement for > the protocol work, because even if it doesn't turn out to be mandatory > to implement (I'm fairly sure it need not be), it might constrain what > we can depend on in the rest of our specification. We run a Whois infrastructure that at times is the busiest on the = Internet. HTTP and TCP are not our performance limiters. Anybody saying = they can't do it this way is gonna have to convince me they aren't doing = something wrong. Also, on the domain side, I would question the need for this requirement = by those who have already not deployed IRIS DCHK, which is the only part = of IRIS that has actually seen deployment. Additionally, since IRIS DCHK = is used, I don't think we should attempt to redo it. >> But let me speak to one of the issues I perceive hinders IRIS. It's >> got too much neato stuff in it that is mandatory. None of the single >> technologies found in IRIS are that cumbersome or hard to implement >> on their own, but taken together in their mandatory-to-implement >> form they constitute an unacceptable hurdle. >=20 > I get that objection, and I'm not saying, "We need|don't need X." I'm > instead asking for arguments in each direction so that we address the > real use cases that drive this work. A significant number of people > want real-time access to the data this service is supposed to offer, > and I suspect that the operators of data sources are going to get > cranky about overhead if they don't have another option. How might > that other option affect what we can do? It seems odd to me that DNS is being considered a solution to a = real-time access protocol. >=20 >> be done with JSON without a lot of custom Javascript code. That >> ability to demonstrate Whois-RWS using a web-browser has been very >> beneficial for us. It demonstrates the power of a RESTful web >> service to non-programmers. =20 >=20 > I fully appreciate the value of the ability to demonstrate something > in a web browser. But if we're going to go to the trouble of > standardizing something, I think we need something stronger than "Easy > demonstration" as a premise. (I'd probably buy the > JSON-sucks-in-browsers argument, but only if we also conclude that > browsers are the primary target for many of these cases. Are they? > The requirements document doesn't say so yet, and I can't tell.) On the contrary, I think easy-to-demonstrate is a goal that nearly all = technologies should have and a more worthy justification than you = provided for JSON. And a modern web browser should be considered as a = simple client in this space. -andy From aservin@lacnic.net Tue Jun 14 18:25:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA7D21F852B for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:25:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.033 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-DQ5Rbf0kcs for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1640421F8529 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (r186-48-239-163.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.239.163]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF1D308446; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:25:23 -0300 (UYT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:25:21 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2F5DEC21-F053-41D1-8A83-BCF24B5F3C23@lacnic.net> References: <86D924BC-40FA-433B-ACAA-47298F89F852@hxr.us> To: Murray S. Kucherawy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:25:44 -0000 On 13 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Andy Newton >> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:50 AM >> To: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >>=20 >>> 4.1 >>> 1. A client SHOULD be able to handle replies that contain data = that >>> are not exclusively 7-bit clean. >>=20 >> Would we want to go further and lock this down to UTF-8 as mandatory = to >> support... others optional? >=20 > Works for me. This (and all the other requirements I listed) are just = starting points for discussion. >=20 >>> 2. A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server >>> provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP = query >>> prior to a TCP query. >>>=20 >>> With respect to a UDP service, a subset of the service could be >>> implemented via the DNS, using [EXPAND-DNS]. >>=20 >> I'm not really sure what is envisioned here, but I would assume to = make >> this useful in any sort of way there would have to be mandatory = server- >> side support. I really don't think we should be doing this. It >> complicates the model, and people who write clients will now have to >> find DNS libraries. And while to some of us that might sound like a >> small barrier, to the people we are aiming this at such a thing is = not >> easy to understand or come by. As I've been discussing Whois-RWS and >> demoing over the past year, one of the big benefits is that I could >> demonstrate the concepts using a Web-browser. I've always wanted as a >> goal for it to be possible to write a client in bash with not much = more >> than curl or xsltproc. >=20 > The UDP idea comes from the rate at which some commercial evaluation = services hit WHOIS servers with high query rates and seeks to reduce the = network load. We don't have to do that if it's a lot harder than the = problem it solves. >=20 > The DNS idea comes from some hallway track chatter at the last ICANN = meeting. One registrar I talked to would be fine providing information = that is helpful to security needs without revealing privacy data and = thought adding them to the DNS would be easiest. The intent would be to = provide that limited set of information via the DNS and also provide = full WHOIS service via more conventional means like TCP. The DNS = wouldn't be rate-limited for privacy reasons, but the full service could = be. The limited information that would be made available is just stuff = like the registration/change date, the registered nameservers, the ID of = the registrar, etc., but not any of the personal information of the = registrant. Those clients that want that specific subset of information = will probably have no problem adapting to a DNS-based (or really, any = UDP-based) service, but there's no expectation that everybody will = change to DNS for the full service. I can live with UDP, still not sure why DNS is involved here. I = would prefer keeping DNS out of whois. >=20 >>> 4.2. Servers >>>=20 >>> 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a >>> defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other = security >>> attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from = a >>> particular source MUST NOT be done. >>=20 >> If this is meant to say that we are developing a protocol for the = open >> publication of records, then I think new wording is needed. But the >> current wording infringes upon an operators view of what constitutes = an >> abusive user and necessary corrective measures. Its all very >> subjective, and to place MUST language around it only invites >> disagreements between people doing things incorrectly and those = having >> to deal with many peoples doing things incorrectly. >=20 > I'm happy to rework the requirement. What I'm hoping to discourage is = the practice of disallowing queries from sites on the automatic = presumption that just about any client making the query is trolling data = for the purpose of poaching customers. This interferes with legitimate = security operations, and it is quite frequent. It might be enough to = have informational provisions for making some kind of arrangements = out-of-band between security-based services that want to consume this = data and the WHOIS providers. Rate-limiting the number of queries per time unit currently = protects whois servers from DoS/DDoS and abusers (or at least we think = it does). How are we going to "accept and process all queries except = when in a defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other = security attack" if "limiting the number of queries per time interval = from a particular source MUST NOT be done", I feel that we are in a kind = of of a deadlock here. Regards, .as From jay@nzrs.net.nz Tue Jun 14 19:12:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AD21F0C55 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6T+01cJLn1Xx for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A171F0C4F for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC1D2DBC10 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:12:56 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FEvshrYnGEuP for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:12:56 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F5282DBBDC for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:12:56 +1200 (NZST) From: Jay Daley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:12:50 +1200 Message-Id: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> To: weirds@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:12:55 -0000 Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for = replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide = credentials before accessing the system. 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of = access/restrictions to different end users. 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the = ability to communicate access control data to the end user 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised = registration data and internationalised domain names. 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error = messages. I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is = needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before = that new protocol is designed. cheers Jay --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From michele@blacknight.ie Tue Jun 14 19:15:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0DE1F0C52 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:15:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4kUirpzLqSq for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E67E1F0C4F for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bkexchmbx02.blacknight.local ([fe80::d4d7:819a:4fb5:c923]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:15:41 +0100 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: Jay Daley Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AQHMKwHJ4EkRDKW/ikq8ffbj6IWIcpS9rjsb Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:15:40 +0000 Message-ID: <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:15:43 -0000 Jay Surely all of them are needed? Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 15 Jun 2011, at 03:13, "Jay Daley" wrote: > Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for replace= ments/enhancements to WHOIS. >=20 > 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide credentia= ls before accessing the system. >=20 > 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of access/re= strictions to different end users. >=20 > 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the abi= lity to communicate access control data to the end user >=20 > 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registratio= n data and internationalised domain names. >=20 > 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. >=20 >=20 > I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is need= ed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before that new= protocol is designed. >=20 > cheers > Jay >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > mobile: +64 21 678840 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From jay@nzrs.net.nz Tue Jun 14 19:21:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B4111E8076 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:21:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DbBm2QfESDDo for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1FA11E808C for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB2E2DBBFF; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:21:18 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8xXcFwEZLiEY; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:21:18 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51AFC2DB640; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:21:17 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:21:12 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> To: Michele@nzrs.net.nz, "Neylon:"@nzrs.net.nz:Blacknight X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:21:19 -0000 Hi Michele If 1, 2 or 3 (and possibly 5) are mandated then it is no longer WHOIS as = we know it. Fine if that is the intent, but we need to sort out that = intent first. best Jay On 15/06/2011, at 2:15 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > Jay >=20 > Surely all of them are needed? >=20 > Regards >=20 > Michele >=20 > Mr. Michele Neylon > Blacknight > http://Blacknight.tel >=20 > Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity >=20 > On 15 Jun 2011, at 03:13, "Jay Daley" wrote: >=20 >> Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for = replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. >>=20 >> 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide = credentials before accessing the system. >>=20 >> 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of = access/restrictions to different end users. >>=20 >> 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the = ability to communicate access control data to the end user >>=20 >> 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised = registration data and internationalised domain names. >>=20 >> 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error = messages. >>=20 >>=20 >> I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is = needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before = that new protocol is designed. >>=20 >> cheers >> Jay >>=20 >> --=20 >> Jay Daley >> Chief Executive >> .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) >> desk: +64 4 931 6977 >> mobile: +64 21 678840 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From johnl@iecc.com Tue Jun 14 20:14:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3589611E80A3 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dwy-WWAXsIkL for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962A011E809F for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 44288 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2011 03:14:01 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2011 03:14:01 -0000 Date: 15 Jun 2011 03:13:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20110615031339.9664.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:14:04 -0000 >The UDP idea comes from the rate at which some commercial evaluation >services hit WHOIS servers with high query rates and seeks to reduce >the network load. We don't have to do that if it's a lot harder than >the problem it solves. I have some small scale experience here with abuse.net, the popular service that publishes abuse contact info for domains. You can look stuff up using the abuse.net web site (ipv4 or ipv6), a WHOIS server, or the DNS, and it works quite well. The data that abuse.net provides about a domain is simple enough that you can get it all with two DNS queries. For anti-abuse purposes, I think it would be useful to have a lightweight query that returned a subset of the whois information such as when it was registered, when it expires, what country the registrant is in, and whether the contact info is available or proxied. That's little enough that I expect people would be OK not rate limiting it. If you're going to have a lightweight UDP query, DNS is the only reasonable way to do it since the client firewalls already have the requisite holes, and the caches work. People who like shell scripts are welcome to use "host" and similar commands. I can tell you from experience that serving this kind of stuff over the DNS is not hard. R's, John From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Jun 15 07:48:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA32421F8574 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:48:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ky7tXlm0HmYQ for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE0F21F8570 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (unknown [74.198.9.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 198AA1ECB41C for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:48:44 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110615144843.GA69214@shinkuro.com> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:48:56 -0000 Hi Jay, On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:12:50PM +1200, Jay Daley wrote: > > I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before that new protocol is designed. > No time like the present! I think your list is a good one. The natural place for this, I suspect, is the requirements document Murray put together: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Do you think any of the items on your list are in fact required or not required? Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From Owen.Smigelski@sunrider.com Wed Jun 15 09:45:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B97F11E808D for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkUSG9fj3XeZ for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.sunrider.com (webmail.sunrider.com [207.247.104.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC11511E809A for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from torex05.sunrider.com (HELO VTOREX01.sunrider.com) ([10.10.2.75]) by webmail.sunrider.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2011 09:44:51 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:42:38 -0700 Message-ID: <869EF11CCCDCDB44BDEABD3AB7AD82AE101BC380@VTOREX01.sunrider.com> In-Reply-To: <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AQHMKwHJ4EkRDKW/ikq8ffbj6IWIcpS9rjsbgADpesA= References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> From: "Owen Smigelski" To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" , "Jay Daley" Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:45:03 -0000 I agree with Michele that all of the list are needed, with a particular emphasis on 4. IDNs requiring WHOIS data in ASCII in part defeats the purpose of having IDNs (requiring additional work for registrants who lack access or knowledge of ASCII equivalent), and has resulted in a lot of confusing WHOIS data (transliterated, translated, and other versions of the WHOIS data). =20 __________________________ Owen Smigelski The Sunrider Corporation dba Sunrider International Senior Counsel 1625 Abalone Avenue Torrance, California 90501 Tel: 310-222-9110 Fax: 310-222-9275 Email: owen.smigelski@sunrider.com -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 19:16 To: Jay Daley Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features Jay Surely all of them are needed? Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 15 Jun 2011, at 03:13, "Jay Daley" wrote: > Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. >=20 > 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide credentials before accessing the system. >=20 > 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of access/restrictions to different end users. >=20 > 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the ability to communicate access control data to the end user >=20 > 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registration data and internationalised domain names. >=20 > 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. >=20 >=20 > I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before that new protocol is designed. >=20 > cheers > Jay >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > mobile: +64 21 678840 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From jay@nzrs.net.nz Wed Jun 15 16:36:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13BA11E81DF for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:36:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qnlBFI+lLOKR for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9506511E81DE for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37CD2DBB13; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:36:41 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3yDhRRB7JOCI; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:36:41 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 582672DB9EC; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:36:41 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <20110615144843.GA69214@shinkuro.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:36:36 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6E80A994-B149-4955-9692-CCF7DB9F3B7A@nzrs.net.nz> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <20110615144843.GA69214@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:36:46 -0000 Hi Andrew On 16/06/2011, at 2:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Hi Jay, >=20 > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:12:50PM +1200, Jay Daley wrote: >>=20 >> I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is = needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before = that new protocol is designed. >>=20 >=20 > No time like the present! I think your list is a good one. The > natural place for this, I suspect, is the requirements document Murray > put together: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 I struggle with a document that gets down to the UDP level before we = have agreed what the technology needs to do. > Do you think any of the items on your list are in fact required or not > required?=20 We should differentiate between technology and services. My preference = is for one technology that can be used to provide multiple services - = different servers running on different ports with different feature = combinations. Care is needed in the service definition though as that = might lead us to the conclusion that one technology cannot provide all = these services. The services are: A. Public lookup of the "public register" details for a registry object = for computers to parse (aka a replacement/fix for WHOIS) Users might include: - everyone and anyone through proxies that displays the data - people we don't like / trust We undoubtedly need to fix WHOIS but with 20/20 hindsight we can see = that the major stumbling block for IRIS was that it tried to "fix" too = much and so presented too much of a change for insufficient perceived = benefit. In that context I would limit the features needed for this = service to: 4. Internationalisation. =20 5. Standardised messages (or guaranteed machine-readable at least). I would also add some technical features: - short transactions - short lived connections - support for out-of-channel rate limiting (on the basis that adding = in-channel rate limiting is a step too far for adopters) - primarily aimed for computer-to-computer communications than = human-to-computer (if you see what I mean!) B. Public lookup of the "public register" details for a registry object = for someone to read (aka a replacement/fix for WHOIS) I include this as a separate service so that we can, if agreed, decide = this is not a service that we need to support, because of course this = was very much the original WHOIS service. Some good arguments against = this service are: - It can be better provided by proxies to A above - A command line tool that does a direct TCP connection is no longer a = common way for end users to interact with services. Users might include: - everyone and anyone - people we don't like / trust The only feature needed here is=20 4. Internationalisation. =20 The technical features: - short transactions - short lived connections - support for out-of-channel rate limiting (on the basis that adding = in-channel rate limiting is a step too far for adopters) - primarily aimed for human-to-computer interactions C. Controlled access to a public register with enhanced search = facilities. Users might include: - registrars/resellers/LIRs - lawyers (the "intellectual property" horde) That should have these four: 1. Authentication. 3. Rate limiting.=20 4. Internationalisation. 5. Standardised messages. though it is debatable whether 3 is needed The technical features of this are different: - long transactions - long lived connections - aimed more towards human-to-computer communications D. Controlled access to a public register for availability checks Users might include - registrars/resellers That has the same four: 1. Authentication. 3. Rate limiting. (definitely needed in this case)=20 4. Internationalisation. 5. Standardised messages. The technical features of this are different though: - short transactions - long live connections (so that they don't need to set it up again) - low latency response - solely for computer-to-computer communications E. Controlled access to public register and private register User might include - law enforcement - security companies This only needs a different four: 1. Authentication. 2. Access control.=20 4. Internationalisation. 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error = messages. Again, it is debatable if 3 is needed. The technical features are different again: - long transactions - short lived connections - primarily computer-to-computer communications as these users have = sophisticated systems this must integrate with - needs stronger authentication security and greater logging/audit = capabilities than either of above (this may include non-repudiation of = lookup requests, signed responses, etc) So, we clearly need new technology that does C and E. =20 I used to think that A could be achieved by fixing WHOIS but I've done = some tests and I'm willing to concede that is highly unlikely so the = technology has to be able to do A as well. =20 I don't see any need for it to support B. =20 Some good arguments could be made that DCHK already does D adequately. cheers Jay >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Wed Jun 15 16:42:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4C211E81DE for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I-CykqqZogKs for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5741111E81DF for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=eKA3RNEtmwUNRdjTDKucVUjNl/+93m6s60AmjJQluKF1n3gPwiyrNAqf sSH0yPgyEjERlgoDhI8rzmg4+G7RVWAzjxSkzWQL+TXEQgAjLSxTj2gcL iae8WnGirVYJBrA; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1308181321; x=1339717321; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XhyyjCzkH3fa3yWwPgjPzJbzDLpK4BEyC8nxpy1aP/w=; b=Wo5jCGlpi/kGGTINnyi7sKUeXtuUbkmrd/awK4BQm0OugvjfCUpHL7xt gTXGBSiAIOuK5zuEtD8nAPxQo76evFSm3brdfSQhn2kr0xTVX1sE0Bp9s EfKtj1f4Ov7Pvm4; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,372,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="2403677" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2011 16:42:01 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.53]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:42:00 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Jay Daley Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:41:58 -0600 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AcwrtdHuwsuFx3k+SE+iLYTNDJwPpg== Message-ID: References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: M8YKRX/CAO5AWkEzFGI6SA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:42:02 -0000 While authentication and access control may have been discussed elsewhere, = could we have an enumeration of the reasons behind these "requirements". Fu= rther, how can these requirements be met along with a requirement for "time= ly, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS informati= on" as stated in the ICANN (one of the "users" of WHOIS) Affirmation of Com= mitments. Other comments inline: On Jun 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Jay Daley wrote: > Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for replace= ments/enhancements to WHOIS. >=20 > 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide credentia= ls before accessing the system. What would these credentials look like? Would they be unique for each WHOIS= service? Is there a single directory? How are users provisioned? Deprovisi= oned? Is provisioning based on individual identity or "entity" identity? Wh= at standards are used to grant access? How are appeals handled? >=20 > 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of access/re= strictions to different end users. Who determines level of access? Are access/restriction levels determined by= individual or entity? (see above). >=20 > 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the abi= lity to communicate access control data to the end user >=20 > 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registratio= n data and internationalised domain names. >=20 > 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. >=20 >=20 > I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is need= ed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before that new= protocol is designed. >=20 > cheers > Jay >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > mobile: +64 21 678840 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From jay@nzrs.net.nz Wed Jun 15 16:44:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C47E11E81DE for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:44:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8QzQjALLHsN for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C00011E8161 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF712CE005; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:44:38 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pn8B0Dte-D5W; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:44:38 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D8E62DB58C; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:44:38 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:44:33 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <43F14CE8-1054-4E06-8A39-4DDD126EB5ED@nzrs.net.nz> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> To: "Smith, Bill" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:44:35 -0000 Hi Bill I think our posts have crossed each other and the answers you want are = in my last post about the services that WEIRDS may support. cheers Jay On 16/06/2011, at 11:41 AM, Smith, Bill wrote: > While authentication and access control may have been discussed = elsewhere, could we have an enumeration of the reasons behind these = "requirements". Further, how can these requirements be met along with a = requirement for "timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and = complete WHOIS information" as stated in the ICANN (one of the "users" = of WHOIS) Affirmation of Commitments. >=20 > Other comments inline: >=20 > On Jun 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >=20 >> Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for = replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. >>=20 >> 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide = credentials before accessing the system. >=20 > What would these credentials look like? Would they be unique for each = WHOIS service? Is there a single directory? How are users provisioned? = Deprovisioned? Is provisioning based on individual identity or "entity" = identity? What standards are used to grant access? How are appeals = handled? >=20 >>=20 >> 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of = access/restrictions to different end users. >=20 > Who determines level of access? Are access/restriction levels = determined by individual or entity? (see above). >=20 >>=20 >> 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the = ability to communicate access control data to the end user >>=20 >> 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised = registration data and internationalised domain names. >>=20 >> 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error = messages. >>=20 >>=20 >> I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is = needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before = that new protocol is designed. >>=20 >> cheers >> Jay --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jun 15 16:45:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AC711E81DB for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xCeI33XYAavb for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A7B11E81D4 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:45:56 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Jay Daley , Andrew Sullivan Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:45:55 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AcwrtRlfjDqWmLa/Qn6cD6nGojlqqwAASagg Message-ID: References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <20110615144843.GA69214@shinkuro.com> <6E80A994-B149-4955-9692-CCF7DB9F3B7A@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <6E80A994-B149-4955-9692-CCF7DB9F3B7A@nzrs.net.nz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:45:58 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Jay Daley > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:37 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Features >=20 > > No time like the present! I think your list is a good one. The > > natural place for this, I suspect, is the requirements document Murray > > put together: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >=20 > I struggle with a document that gets down to the UDP level before we > have agreed what the technology needs to do. It's just a starting point for conversation. We could certainly split into= one document (or section) for high-level requirements and one document (or= section) for a much more technology-heavy discussion of those requirements= . From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Wed Jun 15 16:56:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79AA211E81E7 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:56:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jps1Avu1A8Ht for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A6E11E80DF for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=JyoObgzXinsqzk4TgHsUmMF+v6cv+0xrissawUQYjzuvVR+P1T4PqWLW 5Lis6VFcgIuEwy9b+gv1F5rJArXVPkBiBwBAUjbXBHUASi3d3bp1ZxQ4+ Kzcn23iJG99W/nj; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1308182191; x=1339718191; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Z0UilmEsTNj7kPrLSFb4FbgdyFRk8X25aLJAC4XUBc4=; b=mpTEuDVjgS0W+k4J0cerwtva9wCP/n2PabtNVcSNfzcVXGp6HTJEtD1V bFoJnnbxX3J6OxC9+e+e3MYRqSGO0bhl/a3GiovDomUd2Vfre7wb6NIK9 u/YQ2Eug7J+0VHY; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,372,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="2888728" Received: from den-vtenf-002.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.213]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2011 16:56:31 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.54]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:56:26 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Jay Daley Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:56:24 -0600 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AcwrtludKM0/xdyYQYOYO8e+cUqL4QAADiCw Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205E7F203@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <43F14CE8-1054-4E06-8A39-4DDD126EB5ED@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <43F14CE8-1054-4E06-8A39-4DDD126EB5ED@nzrs.net.nz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: ak5OYHtNlCOIVmObIpfFiw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:56:31 -0000 Jay, I agree with your incremental approach. However, I'm quite concerned with t= he leap to authentication and access control. Having lived in the identity = world for a decade, I'm all too familiar with how easy it is to say authent= ication and authorization yet how difficult they are to implement in practi= ce, especially at scale. I urge caution in adding these as "requirements" without considering the pr= actical implications both for users and service providers. Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Daley [mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:45 PM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Features >=20 > Hi Bill >=20 > I think our posts have crossed each other and the answers you want are > in my last post about the services that WEIRDS may support. >=20 > cheers > Jay >=20 > On 16/06/2011, at 11:41 AM, Smith, Bill wrote: >=20 > > While authentication and access control may have been discussed > elsewhere, could we have an enumeration of the reasons behind these > "requirements". Further, how can these requirements be met along with a > requirement for "timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information" as stated in the ICANN (one of the "users" > of WHOIS) Affirmation of Commitments. > > > > Other comments inline: > > > > On Jun 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Jay Daley wrote: > > > >> Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for > replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. > >> > >> 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide > credentials before accessing the system. > > > > What would these credentials look like? Would they be unique for each > WHOIS service? Is there a single directory? How are users provisioned? > Deprovisioned? Is provisioning based on individual identity or "entity" > identity? What standards are used to grant access? How are appeals > handled? > > > >> > >> 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of > access/restrictions to different end users. > > > > Who determines level of access? Are access/restriction levels > determined by individual or entity? (see above). > > > >> > >> 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on > the ability to communicate access control data to the end user > >> > >> 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised > registration data and internationalised domain names. > >> > >> 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error > messages. > >> > >> > >> I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is > needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before > that new protocol is designed. > >> > >> cheers > >> Jay >=20 >=20 > -- > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > mobile: +64 21 678840 From jay@nzrs.net.nz Wed Jun 15 17:10:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504EF22800E for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:10:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UbTN89-e3zIc for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E0E21F8589 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174352CE005; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:10:21 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGZ183oeFw8f; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:10:20 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFA8F2DBB13; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:10:20 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205E7F203@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:10:15 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <78E1439E-14F4-41C5-A4C9-6D6E51E950C1@nzrs.net.nz> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <43F14CE8-1054-4E06-8A39-4DDD126EB5ED@nzrs.net.nz> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205E7F203@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> To: "Smith, Bill" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:10:19 -0000 On 16/06/2011, at 11:56 AM, Smith, Bill wrote: > Jay, >=20 > I agree with your incremental approach. However, I'm quite concerned = with the leap to authentication and access control. Having lived in the = identity world for a decade, I'm all too familiar with how easy it is to = say authentication and authorization yet how difficult they are to = implement in practice, especially at scale. >=20 > I urge caution in adding these as "requirements" without considering = the practical implications both for users and service providers. I had hoped I was clear that these belong in a very different service = from WHOIS. =20 My concern is exactly the same as yours. There is the very real danger = that people will attempt to add them to WHOIS (or its replacement) = because WHOIS is "just over there" so surely it must be the easiest way = to go, ignoring the fact that that is just not how WHOIS is used by the = vast majority of users. =20 Our best way to head that off is accurately split out the = characteristics of the different services and design appropriate = technology for each, as I've attempted to do. Some registries have avoided the "throw it all into WHOIS trap" by = developing non-WHOIS services that have these features but they are not = standard between registry making the job of interacting with them hard = for implementors. Some examples of these non-WHOIS services are: - a proprietary enhanced search service that allows authenticated = lawyers etc to say search by registrant name. - a high-speed name availability check So there is clearly a case for some sort of service(s) with a standard = protocol that support authentication and access control, just not WHOIS = or a direct replacement for WHOIS. =20 cheers Jay >=20 > Bill >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jay Daley [mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:45 PM >> To: Smith, Bill >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] Features >>=20 >> Hi Bill >>=20 >> I think our posts have crossed each other and the answers you want = are >> in my last post about the services that WEIRDS may support. >>=20 >> cheers >> Jay >>=20 >> On 16/06/2011, at 11:41 AM, Smith, Bill wrote: >>=20 >>> While authentication and access control may have been discussed >> elsewhere, could we have an enumeration of the reasons behind these >> "requirements". Further, how can these requirements be met along with = a >> requirement for "timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate = and >> complete WHOIS information" as stated in the ICANN (one of the = "users" >> of WHOIS) Affirmation of Commitments. >>>=20 >>> Other comments inline: >>>=20 >>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for >> replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. >>>>=20 >>>> 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide >> credentials before accessing the system. >>>=20 >>> What would these credentials look like? Would they be unique for = each >> WHOIS service? Is there a single directory? How are users = provisioned? >> Deprovisioned? Is provisioning based on individual identity or = "entity" >> identity? What standards are used to grant access? How are appeals >> handled? >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of >> access/restrictions to different end users. >>>=20 >>> Who determines level of access? Are access/restriction levels >> determined by individual or entity? (see above). >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on >> the ability to communicate access control data to the end user >>>>=20 >>>> 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised >> registration data and internationalised domain names. >>>>=20 >>>> 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error >> messages. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these = is >> needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) = before >> that new protocol is designed. >>>>=20 >>>> cheers >>>> Jay >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Jay Daley >> Chief Executive >> .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) >> desk: +64 4 931 6977 >> mobile: +64 21 678840 >=20 --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Jun 16 02:36:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4D811E8193 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:36:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LPnspdXH+kPI for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A140D11E818F for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:36:04 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: MIME-Version; b=XY54wBwA3pxHvNzJEdIq5XBII1T1z9dWrjbgMWDiSDzzFEO5C41RdXA0 7oa0qPVhNc2xg+IdYRQzNLfjNGA2ufGI8llMFg86WW3y90zZlBvzbktkI 8j/oFyyedoeUQuE; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1308216965; x=1339752965; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[weirds]=20Features|Date:=20Thu,=2016 =20Jun=202011=2009:35:59=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<330351A0- 423D-43F4-9AB2-F1AF99906136@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"weirds @ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |In-Reply-To:=20<78E1439E-14F4-41C5-A4C9-6D6E51E950C1@nzr s.net.nz>|References:=20<14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6 AEAC@nzrs.net.nz>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<43F14CE8-1054-4E06-8A39-4DDD1 26EB5ED@nzrs.net.nz>=0D=0A=20<39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333 D51066205E7F203@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>=0D=0A=20<78E 1439E-14F4-41C5-A4C9-6D6E51E950C1@nzrs.net.nz>; bh=+MT26buh7OZSrKc2Ndapr9c3IW6cy5rn/PyAAoNFGjA=; b=muwH9NXDmHaG4FFnGQ2pCbU/nemRTNmtLudEAoenFHu14qgCLIWLLDVG R12xl5KzH9qJnAPG3TC/+t6pIx9uKJUpyYifpGiZsyHC9EfPQ5Mr5L83O Pm1p5dKMEaXGlun; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,374,1304290800"; d="scan'208,217";a="26816919" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2011 10:36:00 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:36:00 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AQHMKwG/IlTZGNL00UmFlLbI4jZceZS/BNoAgAAAuYCAAANQAIAAA96AgACeEYA= Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:35:59 +0000 Message-ID: <330351A0-423D-43F4-9AB2-F1AF99906136@nominet.org.uk> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <43F14CE8-1054-4E06-8A39-4DDD126EB5ED@nzrs.net.nz> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205E7F203@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <78E1439E-14F4-41C5-A4C9-6D6E51E950C1@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <78E1439E-14F4-41C5-A4C9-6D6E51E950C1@nzrs.net.nz> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_330351A0423D43F49AB2F1AF99906136nominetorguk_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:36:07 -0000 --_000_330351A0423D43F49AB2F1AF99906136nominetorguk_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16 Jun 2011, at 01:10, Jay Daley wrote: Some registries have avoided the "throw it all into WHOIS trap" by developi= ng non-WHOIS services that have these features but they are not standard be= tween registry making the job of interacting with them hard for implementor= s. I'm pretty sure Jay is alluding to .uk here, so for reference the services = he's referring to are: Some examples of these non-WHOIS services are: - a proprietary enhanced search service that allows authenticated lawyers e= tc to say search by registrant name. our Public Register Search Service: http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/prss/ which is a web-based front end onto = a Solr-based index of our register. - a high-speed name availability check and the Domain Availablity Checker: http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/dac/ which gives very fast responses over a long-lived TCP connection. This tak= es a domain name on a line as input, and returns a single line of output. Ray --_000_330351A0423D43F49AB2F1AF99906136nominetorguk_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <584f8b63-30be-4000-9d89-e0d73512cb62> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 16 Jun 2011, at 01:1= 0, Jay Daley wrote:

Some registries= have avoided the "throw it all into WHOIS trap" by developing no= n-WHOIS services that have these features but they are not standard between= registry making the job of interacting with them hard for implementors.

I'm pretty sure Jay is alluding to .uk here,= so for reference the services he's referring to are:

<= div>
Some examples of these non-WHOIS service= s are:

- a proprietary enhanced search service that allows authentic= ated lawyers etc to say search by registrant name.

our Public Register Search Service:

&= nbsp; http://www.nom= inet.org.uk/other/prss/

which is a web-based front end onto a Solr-= based index of our register.

-= a high-speed name availability check

=
and the Domain Availablity Checker:

  http://www.nominet.org.uk/ot= her/dac/

which gives very fast responses over = a long-lived TCP connection.  This takes a domain name on a line as in= put, and returns a single line of output.

Ray



= --_000_330351A0423D43F49AB2F1AF99906136nominetorguk_-- From keith@blacknight.com Thu Jun 16 04:35:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4669621F853F for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:35:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PUC6cDY1lbCt for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay4.blacknight.com (relay4.blacknight.com [78.153.203.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEBA21F8541 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hegemon.blacknight.ie (hegemon.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.239]) by relay4.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E325139806B for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:35:31 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <4DF9EA83.6030808@blacknight.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:35:31 +0100 From: Keith Gaughan Organization: Blacknight Internet Solutions User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:35:36 -0000 On 15/06/11 03:21, Jay Daley wrote: > If 1, 2 or 3 (and possibly 5) are mandated then it is no longer WHOIS as > we know it. Fine if that is the intent, but we need to sort out that > intent first. I agree with you on 1, 2, and 3 - frankly, they're outside the remit of WHOIS, and 2 and 3 in particular is solely a matter of policy for the entity running the WHOIS server. On the other hand, I disagree on 5 - 4 and 5 are intertwined closely and are surely at the core of what we're discussing here. I'd use the example of GANDI here, whose WHOIS server produces results as YAML, which is both human- and machine-readable. From my point of view as somebody whose job revolves around developing and maintaining the domain management system for a registrar, machine-readable responses in particular are extremely important. K. -- Keith Gaughan, Software Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From jay@nzrs.net.nz Thu Jun 16 12:13:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9462F11E8110 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8YBOXSdv32Uc for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE3211E820A for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950712CE00D; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:13:13 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9euwl0fTTkq; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:13:13 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.15] (121-73-176-35.dsl.telstraclear.net [121.73.176.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 293E62CE008; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:13:13 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <4DF9EA83.6030808@blacknight.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:13:10 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E886212-4F3B-47E0-9DF5-6997A602F9C0@nzrs.net.nz> References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> <74B236C3-3EE6-4787-B3E2-FC8A435FD350@blacknight.com> <4DF9EA83.6030808@blacknight.com> To: Keith Gaughan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:13:13 -0000 Hi Keith On 16/06/2011, at 11:35 PM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > On 15/06/11 03:21, Jay Daley wrote: >=20 >> If 1, 2 or 3 (and possibly 5) are mandated then it is no longer WHOIS = as >> we know it. Fine if that is the intent, but we need to sort out that >> intent first. >=20 > I agree with you on 1, 2, and 3 - frankly, they're outside the remit = of > WHOIS, and 2 and 3 in particular is solely a matter of policy for the > entity running the WHOIS server. >=20 > On the other hand, I disagree on 5 - 4 and 5 are intertwined closely = and > are surely at the core of what we're discussing here. I'd use the = example > of GANDI here, whose WHOIS server produces results as YAML, which is = both > human- and machine-readable. =46rom my point of view as somebody whose = job > revolves around developing and maintaining the domain management = system > for a registrar, machine-readable responses in particular are = extremely > important. I'm from the ccTLD world where each TLD sets its own WHOIS syntax and = output as it sees fit. Some make this as easy to parse as possible, we = in .nz for example send KV pairs, but others like .uk send pure text. = My hesitancy on 5 is because I think we need to explicitly discuss this = feature with a view to ending up at a consensus view - my own aligns = with your view above that any output must be machine readable. cheers Jay >=20 > K. >=20 > --=20 > Keith Gaughan, Software Developer > PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381 > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. > 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland > Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jun 16 12:55:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD74311E8185 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:55:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.013 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iVmIWNlq5mzn for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AB911E8167 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 36816 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2011 19:55:26 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 16 Jun 2011 19:55:26 -0000 Date: 16 Jun 2011 19:55:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4DF9EA83.6030808@blacknight.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:55:29 -0000 >> If 1, 2 or 3 (and possibly 5) are mandated then it is no longer WHOIS as >> we know it. Fine if that is the intent, but we need to sort out that >> intent first. > >I agree with you on 1, 2, and 3 - frankly, they're outside the remit of >WHOIS, and 2 and 3 in particular is solely a matter of policy for the >entity running the WHOIS server. The point of a standard wouldn't be to require or even encourage authentication, access control, or rate limiting. The point is to define a common way to do it, so that if WHOIS servers want clients to authenticate or provide various levels of access, they all do it the same way so clients can use the same software to access all of them. On that basis, I think they're perfectly reasonable things to include. R's, John From jay@nzrs.net.nz Thu Jun 16 13:58:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F07B11E82AD for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:58:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MC2Fz8rmk8Ly for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A516011E8268 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EF12CE011; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:58:49 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TrhrM+FW6vgK; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:58:49 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76D7E2CE00E; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:58:49 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:58:47 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> To: John Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:58:46 -0000 On 17/06/2011, at 7:55 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> If 1, 2 or 3 (and possibly 5) are mandated then it is no longer = WHOIS as >>> we know it. Fine if that is the intent, but we need to sort out = that >>> intent first. >>=20 >> I agree with you on 1, 2, and 3 - frankly, they're outside the remit = of >> WHOIS, and 2 and 3 in particular is solely a matter of policy for the >> entity running the WHOIS server. >=20 > The point of a standard wouldn't be to require or even encourage > authentication, access control, or rate limiting. The point is to > define a common way to do it, so that if WHOIS servers want clients to > authenticate or provide various levels of access, they all do it the > same way so clients can use the same software to access all of them. >=20 > On that basis, I think they're perfectly reasonable things to include. My point is that if a WHOIS server *chose* to implement any of those = features then it is no longer delivering a WHOIS service but very = different service. Any chance this discussion could move to the five service definitions = that I listed, otherwise we run the danger of disagreeing without proper = context to the discussion? cheers Jay >=20 > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jun 16 14:07:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5535711E82FC for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.037 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iB2KU7xXCvwB for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A24211E8138 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 51770 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2011 21:07:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=ca39.4dfa70a1.k1106; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=Xy6aHpa0jQKIrLHL0CaXhDcK0txZGqY1V9tRBSVqfGE=; b=LtGvw+WB6cYS1TEFqaB2ltyyqovGjyA6swXh1wsaA7dHubLBbVmh3B4QSNIvb7PecZG2Z9j/49OmoGIIL2YvA7rHNsgbm2H+v1Y+8BcWicDanJEBgX8w8v3/S+vnIrdNYIpe44d/8FiY+uVutlRG/4KfsjE5gDXJY2XD8AV3aRc= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 16 Jun 2011 21:07:23 -0000 Date: 16 Jun 2011 17:07:44 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Jay Daley" In-Reply-To: References: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:07:47 -0000 > My point is that if a WHOIS server *chose* to implement any of those > features then it is no longer delivering a WHOIS service but very > different service. Then most of the WHOIS servers run by ICANN registrars are not delivering a WHOIS service. If this were ever a battle, it was lost a long time ago. I would also prefer a WHOIS that gave people all the data all the time. But it ain't gonna happen. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From jay@nzrs.net.nz Thu Jun 16 14:15:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC8D11E82FE for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLi3FVlAMe0I for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B66611E8234 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04402DBBF6; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:15:17 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z2uQ14GSHkvy; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:15:17 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D73D2DB454; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:15:17 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:15:14 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3A73ACF6-D3E8-40FD-AA82-E9DDDA386767@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> To: John R. Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:15:19 -0000 On 17/06/2011, at 9:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> My point is that if a WHOIS server *chose* to implement any of those = features then it is no longer delivering a WHOIS service but very = different service. >=20 > Then most of the WHOIS servers run by ICANN registrars are not = delivering a WHOIS service. If this were ever a battle, it was lost a = long time ago. They are not doing authentication / access control so I guess you refer = to the rate limiting that everybody running a WHOIS server does? =20 So long as that is out-of-channel then there is plausible justification = that this is intended to protect the systems at a macro level. As soon = as it becomes in-channel then that introduces a market in access limits. > I would also prefer a WHOIS that gave people all the data all the = time. But it ain't gonna happen. I wouldn't - far too many bad people out there for whom this data is = gold. Anyway - please can we switch to talking about the five service = definitions I provided? Jay >=20 > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for = Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. = http://jl.ly --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jun 16 14:28:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1584F11E8320 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.055 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OH-T5uu3syvC for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2911E11E831E for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 55801 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2011 21:28:12 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=d9f8.4dfa756c.k1106; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=1vxiRkcJXp7I+REYaSNjwHw++53TogeRkhTbWf4Zi38=; b=vB+mBEbtB3YmlXbe7zvT4thcf5zdn/7YBKsLAyP8z6iFdk/zaN+ayvyJYu85aAow3Mzx8Pz7nkoIeAacmfRNNS7SgUWYRAmhHkdZvcUX19HfWVP2WML2XY48cwXxXnrvU6BirwP74J96p3z3DaxvFu83f8oLDjY2YK1zUvvdz7M= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 16 Jun 2011 21:27:49 -0000 Date: 16 Jun 2011 17:28:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Jay Daley" In-Reply-To: <3A73ACF6-D3E8-40FD-AA82-E9DDDA386767@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> <3A73ACF6-D3E8-40FD-AA82-E9DDDA386767@nzrs.net.nz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:28:14 -0000 > They are not doing authentication / access control so I guess you refer to the rate limiting that everybody running a WHOIS server does? They most certainly are. Some people get a lot more rate limited than others. R's, John From keith@blacknight.com Thu Jun 16 18:37:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EAA11E8144 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:37:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3F9HxI77d97u for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay1.blacknight.com (relay1.blacknight.com [78.153.203.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E2111E8138 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hegemon.blacknight.ie (hegemon.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.239]) by relay1.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E46B4800DA for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:37:37 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <4DFAAFE0.5070800@blacknight.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:37:36 +0100 From: Keith Gaughan Organization: Blacknight Internet Solutions User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20110616195504.2406.qmail@joyce.lan> <3A73ACF6-D3E8-40FD-AA82-E9DDDA386767@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:37:41 -0000 On 16/06/11 22:28, John R. Levine wrote: >> They are not doing authentication / access control so I guess you refer to >> the rate limiting that everybody running a WHOIS server does? > > They most certainly are. Some people get a lot more rate limited than others. The critical difference is that it's not part of the protocol, it's a matter of server policy. -- Keith Gaughan, Software Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From michael@mwyoung.ca Fri Jun 17 21:56:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB37B11E80DC for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.359 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mfGmwDCKo7CW for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0719311E8080 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so2997506vxg.31 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.97.8 with SMTP id dw8mr695455vdb.150.1308373000102; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DUN20111 ([199.91.193.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ck16sm1156732vdb.32.2011.06.17.21.56.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Jay Daley'" , References: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <14143572-EB12-4C8F-BAEB-22E89BB6AEAC@nzrs.net.nz> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:56:30 -0400 Message-ID: <006801cc2d74$19b72130$4d256390$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKOmxMxJM+UO1k7tGoX4YrnpETWzZM9quuw Content-Language: en-ca Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:56:41 -0000 Hi Jay, Trying to get back to your original topics, So 1-3 I think do not need reinvention - plenty of good options to pick from already in existence. Now I can see a health debate over those choices, but lets work on the hard stuff first. 4 and 5 don't really exist for RDDS (Whois) and would be of great benefit to the community if we can provide them - this is real protocol work that needs to get done. I do think we need to consider the requirements list (in its entirety) from the GNSO whois requirements report - the whole whois saga can be found here at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ . Note I am cautious about getting dragged into an overly complex solution that will never get completed, but this list of requirements needs a little discussion and we can use it to build a roadmap - meaning we bring the most important items to the top and address them first. For those requirements we don't want to try and solve now, we do need to make sure we leave room in any protocol work we do - for someone else to address those requirements if they so desire. I see that as an exercise of enabling others with the tools to solve their own unique use cases. I've seen a lot of arguing back over forth over what whois should be, what it should do, how it should be built, etc etc for 10 years now. I think, we should focus on ENABLING instead of debating, but doing so in a progressive prioritized manner - just like you do when you build software in the real world :-) If we argue over anything, lets make it which requirement we address first. Oh and JSON is definitely of interest, but XML is going to be easier to deal with in the short term (more mature) and might make addressing some of the IDN issues quicker (again more prior work to draw on) My two cents. -MY Best Regards, Michael Young M:+1-647-289-1220 -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jay Daley Sent: June-14-11 10:13 PM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] Features Here is a list of features that have been variously discussed for replacements/enhancements to WHOIS. 1. Authentication. The requirement for an end user to provide credentials before accessing the system. 2. Access control. The ability to provide different levels of access/restrictions to different end users. 3. Rate limiting. A specialised case of 2 above which relies on the ability to communicate access control data to the end user 4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registration data and internationalised domain names. 5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. I for one would prefer a substantive discussion on which of these is needed in a new protocol (and then which is mandatory/optional) before that new protocol is designed. cheers Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Sat Jun 18 08:25:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E87911E8148 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:25:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LN2uFqQmBY3p for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993B611E812B for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 66002 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2011 15:25:06 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Jun 2011 15:25:06 -0000 Date: 18 Jun 2011 15:24:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <006801cc2d74$19b72130$4d256390$@mwyoung.ca> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:25:16 -0000 >4 and 5 don't really exist for RDDS (Whois) and would be of great benefit to >the community if we can provide them - this is real protocol work that needs >to get done. >4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registration >data and internationalised domain names. > >5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. There's a standard WHOIS query and response for GTLD thick registries that is pretty consistently implemented. For I18N, what would be necessary beyond decreeing that text fields are UTF-8? I'm not saying that either of these are idea, but they are existing practice or close to it. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Sat Jun 18 08:29:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A1911E8148 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:29:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.892 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bPVlW11o0aai for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E5011E80FF for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 67006 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2011 15:29:30 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Jun 2011 15:29:30 -0000 Date: 18 Jun 2011 15:29:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:29:32 -0000 In article <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> you write: >>4 and 5 don't really exist for RDDS (Whois) and would be of great benefit to >>the community if we can provide them - this is real protocol work that needs >>to get done. > >>4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registration >>data and internationalised domain names. >> >>5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. > >There's a standard WHOIS query and response for GTLD thick registries >that is pretty consistently implemented. > >For I18N, what would be necessary beyond decreeing that text fields are UTF-8? > >I'm not saying that either of these are idea, but they are existing practice >or close to it. ahem, ... either of these are ideal, ... R's, John From michael@mwyoung.ca Sun Jun 19 08:10:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3322411E809B for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WU0FUIHpLEfV for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F9E11E8070 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so33904vws.31 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.73.101 with SMTP id k5mr905150vdv.264.1308496232269; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DUN20111 ([61.8.225.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m38sm275627vcy.44.2011.06.19.08.10.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:10:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Young" To: "'John Levine'" , References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:10:20 -0400 Message-ID: <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFLO9i1DabPjwcAIjy1EYeJcfDRkZXGqY0g Content-Language: en-ca Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:10:35 -0000 Sorry did you mean the ICANN GTLD registry agreement specification? Not sure that's wide enough for all the use cases, there's no base schema or extension mechanism for said schema if you want to add a field type. I think we could certainly start with it though. UTF-8 ok, beyond that, for starters how about adherence to RFCs 5891, 5892, 5893 and 5894? Or do we want to assume inheritance of compliance for the IDN string via registry enforcement? That makes me nervous though. Best Regards, Michael Young M:+1-647-289-1220 -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine Sent: June-18-11 11:29 AM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features In article <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> you write: >>4 and 5 don't really exist for RDDS (Whois) and would be of great >>benefit to the community if we can provide them - this is real >>protocol work that needs to get done. > >>4. Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised >>registration data and internationalised domain names. >> >>5. Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages. > >There's a standard WHOIS query and response for GTLD thick registries >that is pretty consistently implemented. > >For I18N, what would be necessary beyond decreeing that text fields are UTF-8? > >I'm not saying that either of these are idea, but they are existing >practice or close to it. ahem, ... either of these are ideal, ... R's, John _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 19 08:18:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855D911E80B2 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFDc3jwtzYud for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E6C11E80B0 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 36325 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2011 15:18:28 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=8de4.4dfe1344.k1106; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=vLlyIwPP9v5USELbv8SnbIiM9/a5HMXdTreG3ii31mc=; b=rIBW17WXx7jR33kyU/SLVDjwFA/0wcKj68MUI96H8II2E9fTkpENGpTgc+6CRFRyd4/7zIZpyRLjikrD9Wl94kOFe2Ma5yQxx4y7D6nXnZg1fUoNW8/ECpPm/B+2pagRJtSLH8igqFFtVLvKt9mBAaE1ylDtnluIGDbEsbCdeqA= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jun 2011 15:18:06 -0000 Date: 19 Jun 2011 11:18:28 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Michael Young" In-Reply-To: <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:18:31 -0000 > Sorry did you mean the ICANN GTLD registry agreement specification? Not > sure that's wide enough for all the use cases, there's no base schema or > extension mechanism for said schema if you want to add a field type. I > think we could certainly start with it though. It has the admirable advantage of existing and being widely implemented. It's just text lines in a tag:value format, so the extension process is obvious, if not who would manage the registry of tags. I note that at least one ccTLD, .US, uses the same format in its WHOIS. > UTF-8 ok, beyond that, for starters how about adherence to RFCs 5891, 5892, > 5893 and 5894? Since most of the UTF-8 in a WHOIS entry would not be domain names, I think that would be an unusually poor idea. R's, John From michael@mwyoung.ca Sun Jun 19 08:24:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844AE11E80B2 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzduhyBxkP7a for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0544E11E8070 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so38625vws.31 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.174.176 with SMTP id bt16mr1473105vdc.282.1308497079333; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DUN20111 ([61.8.225.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t13sm1479462vds.42.2011.06.19.08.24.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Young" To: "'John R. Levine'" References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:24:27 -0400 Message-ID: <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQISBt9y/meCQ1z/KbTPs5sWYUxP0wFLO9i1A2iEm+YB3jWXyJQEi5iw Content-Language: en-ca Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:24:43 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: June-19-11 11:18 AM To: Michael Young Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: RE: [weirds] Features > Sorry did you mean the ICANN GTLD registry agreement specification? > Not sure that's wide enough for all the use cases, there's no base > schema or extension mechanism for said schema if you want to add a > field type. I think we could certainly start with it though. It has the admirable advantage of existing and being widely implemented. It's just text lines in a tag:value format, so the extension process is obvious, if not who would manage the registry of tags. I note that at least one ccTLD, .US, uses the same format in its WHOIS. Sure but it still needs to be written down to be a standard, even if it is obvious > UTF-8 ok, beyond that, for starters how about adherence to RFCs 5891, > 5892, > 5893 and 5894? Since most of the UTF-8 in a WHOIS entry would not be domain names, I think that would be an unusually poor idea. These RFCs refer to the domain string not to general output. I wouldn't suggest we try and make the rest of the output conform to these :-) R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 19 08:47:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4CE11E80CA for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwKvcTPQ+dLO for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DB711E8070 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 41795 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2011 15:47:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=a342.4dfe19fa.k1106; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=BSqwzZUDapYof+wHybvvy3ZBonPCqChzZSHLxjYlGLU=; b=ZaiOBhbu0zEaAhYDwDjQ2kIV3g2JiuWi9nVvKcbX03XqDLwgcshXvsbuwKOXEikJfBkiyJBdHS7NqZ1FfoHmzJHTcoShZ9aNnKzvD26QCzz5iNxZFERhHyigp2s/P0fbOK5+jVi4D9npIUH1heihEvZdLi+5QzQ2hivULIJZNKE= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jun 2011 15:46:44 -0000 Date: 19 Jun 2011 11:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Michael Young" In-Reply-To: <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:47:08 -0000 >> Sorry did you mean the ICANN GTLD registry agreement specification? > It has the admirable advantage of existing and being widely implemented. > > Sure but it still needs to be written down to be a standard, even if it is > obvious Hmmn. What leads you to believe that it's not written down? See Appendix 5 of any of the recent ICANN registry agreements. >> UTF-8 ok, beyond that, for starters how about adherence to RFCs 5891, >> 5892, 5893 and 5894? > > Since most of the UTF-8 in a WHOIS entry would not be domain names, I think > that would be an unusually poor idea. > > These RFCs refer to the domain string not to general output. I wouldn't > suggest we try and make the rest of the output conform to these :-) Any registered IDN domain name used as a lookup key is already an A-label. The RFCs soon to be published by the EAI group will strongly recommend that domains in e-mail addresses NOT be represented as A-labels. In any event, this is all premature optimization. My point was just that there is an existing widely used resonably well specified text WHOIS format. If people think the best approach is to standardize existing practice, it's the obvious place to start. If, on the other hand, they want to invent an all new singing dancing XML JSON CORBA (add buzzwords to taste) system, I'd encourage people to start by stating as clearly as possible what problem they're trying to solve. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From michael@mwyoung.ca Sun Jun 19 18:22:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1FB11E8090 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.829 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YtiAmRTUZdou for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A31B11E8081 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so226067vws.31 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.99.5 with SMTP id em5mr3230027vdb.24.1308532950415; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DUN20111 ([199.91.193.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l15sm1593617vdt.34.2011.06.19.18.22.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:22:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Young" To: "'John R. Levine'" , "Joseph (idn) Yee" , =?gb2312?B?Sm9zZXBoIChpZG4pIFllZSAo0sHV0b3cQLu3x/K159PKLmluZm8p?=@ietfa.amsl.com References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:22:13 -0400 Message-ID: <015101cc2ee8$81952f70$84bf8e50$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQISBt9y/meCQ1z/KbTPs5sWYUxP0wFLO9i1A2iEm+YB3jWXyAF3GDfaAQ9+R9qT8PsckA== Content-Language: en-ca Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:22:32 -0000 Lol, John you seriously have debate energy! We actually really do agree here, reuse, reinforce, and make use of whatever already exists,..... As for the email label, interesting, Joesph Yee is here at the ICANN meeting with me, I will ask him to join this list - since he's really a consumate expert there - his input could be helpful to the discussion. -Michael -----Original Message----- From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: June-19-11 11:47 AM To: Michael Young Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: RE: [weirds] Features >> Sorry did you mean the ICANN GTLD registry agreement specification? > It has the admirable advantage of existing and being widely implemented. > > Sure but it still needs to be written down to be a standard, even if > it is obvious Hmmn. What leads you to believe that it's not written down? See Appendix 5 of any of the recent ICANN registry agreements. >> UTF-8 ok, beyond that, for starters how about adherence to RFCs 5891, >> 5892, 5893 and 5894? > > Since most of the UTF-8 in a WHOIS entry would not be domain names, I > think that would be an unusually poor idea. > > These RFCs refer to the domain string not to general output. I > wouldn't suggest we try and make the rest of the output conform to > these :-) Any registered IDN domain name used as a lookup key is already an A-label. The RFCs soon to be published by the EAI group will strongly recommend that domains in e-mail addresses NOT be represented as A-labels. In any event, this is all premature optimization. My point was just that there is an existing widely used resonably well specified text WHOIS format. If people think the best approach is to standardize existing practice, it's the obvious place to start. If, on the other hand, they want to invent an all new singing dancing XML JSON CORBA (add buzzwords to taste) system, I'd encourage people to start by stating as clearly as possible what problem they're trying to solve. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From jay@nzrs.net.nz Sun Jun 19 18:53:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965FD21F84C8 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:53:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vwj9p4r5Uga7 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99A621F84C7 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AA02DB135; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:53:15 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ru2AjZa7PKp; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:53:15 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D41F2DAA22; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:53:15 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:53:10 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> To: John R. Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:53:17 -0000 Hi John On 20/06/2011, at 3:47 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > In any event, this is all premature optimization. My point was just = that > there is an existing widely used resonably well specified text WHOIS = format. > If people think the best approach is to standardize existing practice, = it's > the obvious place to start. In my view it isn't, for the following reasons: 1. It only very partially meets my criterion 5 (Standardised, machine = readable queries, responses and error messages) - Response is only standardised across a small subset of gTLD = registrations. It is not standardised for - Registrar WHOIS for thin registries - ccTLDs - Only the basic WHOIS query is standardised but not those that include = parameters where each registry does its own thing - Error messages are not standardised at all 2. It only very partially meets by criterion 4 (Internationalisation. = Full support for internationalised registration data and = internationalised domain names.) - There is no mechanism available for a client to signal that it wants = UTF-8 encoding rather than 7-bit. Attempting to add this through say a = WHOIS parameter would mean changing almost every WHOIS server first as = they don't recognise parameters. - There is no standard mechanism for a server to signal that its = response is UTF-8. This could be added by a BOM at the beginning of the = output but then every client would need to be fixed to accept that = gracefully. - Without UTF-8 (or another 8 bit) there is no support for = internationalised registration data, except for Japanese which has a = 7-bit encoding available (ISO-2022-JP). - The limited standardisation above is only for English labels. Serious = i18n means that every part of the WHOIS message can be = internationalised. > If, on the other hand, they want to invent an all new singing dancing = XML > JSON CORBA (add buzzwords to taste) system, I'd encourage people to = start by > stating as clearly as possible what problem they're trying to solve. I have, pretty clearly, in this message: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00022.html and I've prompted you to comment on this three times now. cheers Jay --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 19 19:16:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A65211E8089 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:16:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.616 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ekb9mtG7mz6e for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila.iecc.com [64.57.183.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9445711E8081 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 47007 invoked by uid 125); 20 Jun 2011 02:16:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=b79e.4dfead8d.k1106; bh=47WFSsb6xoRf0m5jJ2Jdsw01f9596xNC4EfudsATp2E=; b=R85dl4DIr5fJjE+ixJKFkkhhsy0UinPTo9vhPPmflyWdKvk2L+miiMClayVHps5zpi5O4Kbjk570dtOjkah0xz0SfeFWQDcRlCUTmd1xHp9sSDLyoc/pXSC6UaTzGKE0dooT7n/Bu1BDG86kIu+dGwhg4HPXZgGZsujF/9nemuY= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 20 Jun 2011 02:16:23 -0000 Date: 19 Jun 2011 22:16:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Jay Daley" In-Reply-To: <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:16:48 -0000 > I have, pretty clearly, in this message: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00022.html > > and I've prompted you to comment on this three times now. Oh, that. It still has a bad case of premature overoptimization. We need to figure out what problem we're trying to solve before going into that level of detail. Domain WHOIS? IP range WHOIS? Some or all of the other random junk you can tease out of various WHOIS servers? Does it give the same results to everyone? Can clients present credentials and get more info? What sort of query rate is it supposed to handle? Does it have to handle very high query rates, or would be be OK to use an alternate distribution approach for high volume clients, like DNSBLs do? Does it need more detailed errors than "I'm not going to tell you that" or "I don't know"? The existing Appendix 5 format handles domain WHOIS reasonably well. I don't find any of your objections to it compelling, e.g., thin registries were a mistake, and at least one ccTLD uses the existing format. Having written too many WHOIs parsers, I can report from experience that the appendix 5 format is easy for computer clients to parse. As far as looking up registry objects, that seems like a reasonable idea if there is any agreement about what the vocabulary of registry objects is. At this point, I don't see much. I agree that I18n is useful, but I don't see why it requires anything more than putting UTF-8 in the results. If it needs to be backward compatible with some prior non-UTF-8 system, that's more complicated than a query flag to say no UTF-8. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From jay@nzrs.net.nz Sun Jun 19 19:50:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA99C228008 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:50:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imhsppQgUb+B for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D55911E8081 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190A62DAA1E; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:50:55 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WDQZJXkabZtE; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:50:54 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.200] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D81F22DA47F; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:50:54 +1200 (NZST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:50:50 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6F2C0FB1-011A-4DC5-8E43-BB9DF829E87D@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> To: John R. Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:50:54 -0000 On 20/06/2011, at 2:16 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> I have, pretty clearly, in this message: >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00022.html >>=20 >> and I've prompted you to comment on this three times now. >=20 > Oh, that. It still has a bad case of premature overoptimization. We = need to figure out what problem we're trying to solve before going into = that level of detail. I'm not sure how you think a service definition can be premature - that = is step 1 in any analysis process. =20 Step 2 is then deciding if existing technology is adequate or can be = amended to work - which is the step where your arguments sit. > Domain WHOIS? IP range WHOIS? Some or all of the other random junk = you can tease out of various WHOIS servers? Does it give the same = results to everyone? Can clients present credentials and get more info? = What sort of query rate is it supposed to handle? Does it have to = handle very high query rates, or would be be OK to use an alternate = distribution approach for high volume clients, like DNSBLs do? Does it = need more detailed errors than "I'm not going to tell you that" or "I = don't know"? I'm also not sure what that list is. If it is a list of questions still = to be answered then I don't agree - the service definitions I provided = do that fine. The fact that you are jumbling all these things together = when I have cleanly separated them out makes me wonder if you understood = my service definitions? Perhaps I did not explain them enough? > The existing Appendix 5 format handles domain WHOIS reasonably well. = I don't find any of your objections to it compelling, e.g., thin = registries were a mistake, and at least one ccTLD uses the existing = format. Having written too many WHOIs parsers, I can report from = experience that the appendix 5 format is easy for computer clients to = parse. So now we are back onto step 2 - can any of the service definitions I've = documented by provided by current WHOIS technology? To answer your = points: 1. You can't dismiss the problem of multifarious registrar WHOIS = servers for thin registries in one line. They exist and are not = standardised at all. 2. Roughly the other 246 ccTLDs don't use that syntax and many of them = can't because they have a different data model. Therefore the current minimal standardisation (if it even deserves that = label) cannot be cited as evidence of why we should stick with WHOIS. > As far as looking up registry objects, that seems like a reasonable = idea if there is any agreement about what the vocabulary of registry = objects is. At this point, I don't see much. I have no idea what this means. > I agree that I18n is useful, but I don't see why it requires anything = more than putting UTF-8 in the results. If it needs to be backward = compatible with some prior non-UTF-8 system, that's more complicated = than a query flag to say no UTF-8. To be clear, you are saying that WHOIS can be comfortably = internationalised provided it is accepted that it will be incompatible = with many existing WHOIS clients and provided that almost every WHOIS = server can be rewritten to support this? Altogether you have not provided any compelling reason as to why we = should stick with WHOIS. Nor have you addressed the key point I made in my service definitions, = which is that multiple related services exist in the wild and a new = single technology could underpin all of those thereby fixing several = problems at once. A compelling reason to move to a new technology. cheers Jay >=20 > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for = Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. = http://jl.ly --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 19 20:42:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9C411E8139 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.826, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bMMgjUpGdRf2 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila.iecc.com [64.57.183.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29C511E809D for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 47657 invoked by uid 125); 20 Jun 2011 03:42:40 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=ba28.4dfec1b0.k1106; bh=V0bDas9s+ZEGKVxLK8my4wibsV+u48Niegm6t2iHfRY=; b=GD2c8DFVnEJ/QqmDlApZdGnijjcLV8m6FX9QNgwtuns/nOXO3ly6WystsOqNIKojydGbUJRog2b1h8itOg17z3GiTU3kVB5uwuSJvnQ7ildWrmMZvqiefqWdgwmPj416LRMLXAj65NdyCmR+ZzKOzqOT2x5hLEIDwzylaiSwCNU= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 20 Jun 2011 03:42:18 -0000 Date: 19 Jun 2011 23:42:40 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Jay Daley" In-Reply-To: <6F2C0FB1-011A-4DC5-8E43-BB9DF829E87D@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> <6F2C0FB1-011A-4DC5-8E43-BB9DF829E87D@nzrs.net.nz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:42:42 -0000 PS: > 1. You can't dismiss the problem of multifarious registrar WHOIS servers for thin registries in one line. They exist and are not standardised at all. ICANN has said they're going away. They're dismissed. > 2. Roughly the other 246 ccTLDs don't use that syntax and many of them > can't because they have a different data model. Then we don't have to worry about them, since we certainly can't support 246 incompatible and undocumented data models. I don't understand what point(s) you're trying to make, so this is my last response on this thread. R's, John From michele@blacknight.ie Sun Jun 19 20:49:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72BF11E813B for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:49:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86u9VuZDf1Zo for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD36211E809D for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bkexchmbx02.blacknight.local ([fe80::d4d7:819a:4fb5:c923]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:49:42 +0100 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: "John R. Levine" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Features Thread-Index: AQHMKwHJ4EkRDKW/ikq8ffbj6IWIcpTCgWUAgACvhwCAAAE6AIABjRUAgAACRQCAAAGsgIAABlQAgACpVgCAAAaWgIAACYYAgAAOfACAAAHyAA== Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:49:41 +0000 Message-ID: <276EF49A-682B-415A-8D05-A04BC6F70830@blacknight.ie> References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> <6F2C0FB1-011A-4DC5-8E43-BB9DF829E87D@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [199.91.193.1] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5F2ADDC08F895046BC089FAC0727E0F4@blacknight.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:49:46 -0000 On 20 Jun 2011, at 11:42, John R. Levine wrote: > PS: >=20 >> 1. You can't dismiss the problem of multifarious registrar WHOIS server= s for thin registries in one line. They exist and are not standardised at = all. >=20 > ICANN has said they're going away. They're dismissed. When ? Where? >=20 >> 2. Roughly the other 246 ccTLDs don't use that syntax and many of them = can't because they have a different data model. >=20 > Then we don't have to worry about them, since we certainly can't support = 246 incompatible and undocumented data models. >=20 > I don't understand what point(s) you're trying to make, so this is my las= t response on this thread. >=20 > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://invadeeurope.eu http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612=20 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From keith@blacknight.com Mon Jun 20 04:23:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F175611E810D for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N6GTLnN51dyZ for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.blacknight.com (relay2.blacknight.com [78.153.203.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6DF11E807A for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hegemon.blacknight.ie (hegemon.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.239]) by relay2.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D403C394058 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:23:29 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <4DFF2DB1.2040803@blacknight.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:23:29 +0100 From: Keith Gaughan Organization: Blacknight Internet Solutions User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20110618152444.47657.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110618152908.47810.qmail@joyce.lan> <00da01cc2e93$0573b100$105b1300$@mwyoung.ca> <00db01cc2e94$feadc3e0$fc094ba0$@mwyoung.ca> <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <50C3EB65-4458-4B55-8F5F-F6572631AB25@nzrs.net.nz> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Features X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:23:35 -0000 On 20/06/11 02:53, Jay Daley wrote: > Hi John > > On 20/06/2011, at 3:47 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > >> In any event, this is all premature optimization. My point was just that >> there is an existing widely used resonably well specified text WHOIS format. >> If people think the best approach is to standardize existing practice, it's >> the obvious place to start. > > In my view it isn't, for the following reasons: > > 1. It only very partially meets my criterion 5 (Standardised, machine readable queries, responses and error messages) That can mostly be solved using pragmata. For instance, it would be useful to allow commentary in WHOIS output, so let's say we used '#' as the comment leader. Something like '##' could be used as a leader for pragmata, and there could be an initial pragma mandated to specify a schema and version for the contents. Thus: ##WHOIS domain 1.0 Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM Domain Registration Date: Wed Jun 21 13:58:02 GMT 2006 Domain Expiration Date: Mon Jun 20 23:59:59 GMT 2011 Domain Last Updated Date: Sun Jun 19 04:18:53 GMT 2011 ...and so on... (Personally, I'm not a massive fan of ctime()-style dates, but there you go.) > - Response is only standardised across a small subset of gTLD registrations. > It is not standardised for > - Registrar WHOIS for thin registries > - ccTLDs An issue for ICANN, really, though we can recommend that they require that new registrars use it for their WHOIS servers for thin registries and that existing registrars migrate over to it. and that ccTLDs, where providing a full WHOIS service, use it. > - Only the basic WHOIS query is standardised but not those that include parameters where each registry does its own thing > > - Error messages are not standardised at all Error messages can use a separate schema. Thus, if an error occurs, you'd get something like this: ##WHOIS error 1.0 Error Code: 2000 Description: Cat walking on keyboard. That's a start, anyway. > 2. It only very partially meets by criterion 4 (Internationalisation. Full support for internationalised registration data and internationalised domain names.) > > - There is no mechanism available for a client to signal that it wants UTF-8 encoding rather than 7-bit. Attempting to add this through say a WHOIS parameter would mean changing almost every WHOIS server first as they don't recognise parameters. > > - There is no standard mechanism for a server to signal that its response is UTF-8. This could be added by a BOM at the beginning of the output but then every client would need to be fixed to accept that gracefully. We can mandate that the standard format is itself in UTF-8. Clients only need to look at the first line to tell it apart for any other format. I've no problem with including a BOM at the start too. A dumb WHOIS client isn't going to care much about it anyway, and a smart one is going to be parsing the response anyway, so this isn't a big deal. > - Without UTF-8 (or another 8 bit) there is no support for internationalised registration data, except for Japanese which has a 7-bit encoding available (ISO-2022-JP). > > - The limited standardisation above is only for English labels. Serious i18n means that every part of the WHOIS message can be internationalised. Nope, the labels can be treated as opaque strings that just *happen* to be in English. A smart WHOIS client can localise the text. A K. -- Keith Gaughan, Software Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From sm@resistor.net Sun Jun 26 02:16:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7F59E8004 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:16:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HnLtTbf+4C6F for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034579E8042 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p5Q9GLir009474 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:16:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309079788; bh=zM+AKgqkMtHLkK07ewd9gzsNsU3NlNiJPLbdfF47VuA=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=m4QFDUS3q7e6CXoFBVk/Vp3j6wEfKZ3CQb8Kt/L7fvVNF/j3wDVeMFQDGGA8qkd+Z LSZS93vYO5vx9XtZdL9N9OJZXUNjDiOfUEMwRNJ769pc1frUV9HAPNQkcoBDdVIahR zWMam0JdKs2u4jEVrcpRGIgJ7rsL1AheS9ywj81U= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309079788; bh=zM+AKgqkMtHLkK07ewd9gzsNsU3NlNiJPLbdfF47VuA=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=KwSffabGJdGdo2v5/hMi5qhlA7Xv6+hcbHgE3s2ARWynXyDFwY8/9i9PC+dUcbRar IGMg+D7yJvJGeikgfGj5YvVO+B4GitlbvWmmYwlBEMWNphNYhoTFcj3W1K9UK2rMZn NB70v4XDw3vCXl5/1dQVwUuK2O0F1+ksOKlvvkrA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:12:15 -0700 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:16:34 -0000 Hi Murray, I have a few comments about draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00. In Section 4.1: "A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP query prior to a TCP query." That sounds like DNS. In Section 4.2: "Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a particular source MUST NOT be done." There is generally a limit on the number of queries as resources are always a constraint. I think that such a requirement is unrealistic. Regards, -sm From warren@kumari.net Sun Jun 26 18:48:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028E711E8095 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:48:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YN6jRaJktdWz for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F11611E8091 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.91.2.134] (unknown [203.176.188.50]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A7D71B405C3; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:48:05 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:48:12 -0000 On Jun 26, 2011, at 5:12 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Murray, >=20 > I have a few comments about draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00. >=20 > In Section 4.1: >=20 > "A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server > provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP query > prior to a TCP query." >=20 > That sounds like DNS. >=20 > In Section 4.2: >=20 > "Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a > particular source MUST NOT be done." >=20 > There is generally a limit on the number of queries as resources are = always a constraint. I think that such a requirement is unrealistic. Yes -- there are also (obviously) technical limits in place (I can only = shuffle queries at you at a rate limited by the size of (min(pipe, cpu, = disk, etc)). If you force this as a MUST NOT, folk will artificially = limit things with some bottleneck=85 W >=20 > Regards, > -sm >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 26 19:08:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352CE21F85A3 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.269 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67fKv1SRJngV for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D4921F85A2 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 63708 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2011 02:08:03 -0000 Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2011 02:08:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 7321 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2011 02:08:03 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 27 Jun 2011 02:08:03 -0000 Date: 27 Jun 2011 02:07:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 02:08:12 -0000 > "A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server > provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP query > prior to a TCP query." > >That sounds like DNS. It's definitely DNS, but someone (not Murray) apparently thinks that it might be a good idea to reinvent it on a different port. >In Section 4.2: > > "Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a > particular source MUST NOT be done." All the DNSBLs that are at all popular do rate limiting both for anti-DDoS and to separate the small free users from the larger paid users. This seems a wee bit optimistic. Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that servers SHOULD provision adequate capacity to respond to the anticipated number of queries, and SHOULD disclose policies that provide different levels of service to different categories of clients. R's, John From warren@kumari.net Sun Jun 26 20:08:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90DF11E80A5 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7+k7w4pzhoEk for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC1611E809D for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.91.2.134] (unknown [203.176.188.50]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E363B1B405C3; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:08:31 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> To: John Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 03:08:34 -0000 On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, John Levine wrote: >> "A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server >> provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP query >> prior to a TCP query." >>=20 >> That sounds like DNS. >=20 > It's definitely DNS, but someone (not Murray) apparently thinks that > it might be a good idea to reinvent it on a different port. >=20 >> In Section 4.2: >>=20 >> "Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a >> particular source MUST NOT be done." >=20 > All the DNSBLs that are at all popular do rate limiting both for > anti-DDoS and to separate the small free users from the larger paid > users. This seems a wee bit optimistic. >=20 > Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that servers SHOULD > provision adequate capacity to respond to the anticipated number of > queries, and SHOULD disclose policies that provide different levels of > service to different categories of clients. Oooh, that's much better than my earlier snarky comments=85 W >=20 > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From sm@resistor.net Mon Jun 27 01:22:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E9421F863F for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:22:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3ddPhFrQfbx for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7EB21F861A for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p5R8MXmq023119 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:22:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309162959; bh=/wgaXGnBpJAmLgZTb5wy1+Z30968Kmpc8o/do6VNuR0=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=h5TjLYj1d0SVpoqX9bJ/TecyeBmygGmoFx712ClaXE5HidIudF+5WgOywPpZbuD1l MXxVyqsmk6eDTNrDExhO9Gd5oOgXIFXCwALFD4ELbyu8yS7r+q6+ejfgS6Tz04wkFH 9jKIRH7QhLdgIcPKyO6Dqqh2rgkROJDhfm50V39Q= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309162959; bh=/wgaXGnBpJAmLgZTb5wy1+Z30968Kmpc8o/do6VNuR0=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=RyLXzwA0kzU6ubZAYF+2FSvSGt1HKcfFL1gtJc/4uYvYZ9PlNDUyQvhixnoGtmxQu BbkauPzV/+nRtNhDqrWhxMsz/YayVIRaZVWwbVlxTJZCCvB8Kd2t4/xnPhCheUJQGE 2j5/+TkPFi4Q7ut9MbORs1DoqsWipWuto8DWz4d4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:17:27 -0700 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:22:43 -0000 At 19:07 26-06-2011, John Levine wrote: >Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that servers SHOULD >provision adequate capacity to respond to the anticipated number of >queries, and SHOULD disclose policies that provide different levels of >service to different categories of clients. It's better to keep technical specifications and policy separate. The document mentions that "IRIS has seen little to no deployment for various reasons, mostly its complexity compared to WHOIS and some political and technical inertia". Should this effort go down that path, it may result in a similar outcome. BTW, some of the text in the Abstract section is not reflected in the body of the document. Whois services are operated by several organizations; gTLDs, ccTLDs, RIRs, etc. Some of these organizations are not bound by some top-down policy. Some of them don't even disclose their policies. Some of the I-Ds that have been posted are from RIRs. As they have jumped on the RESTful bandwagon, is there any interest in developing a different protocol? Section 2 of draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 mentions that "the intent to publish one of the API specifications as a standards track document, and the remainder (including this memo) as informational documents". In my book, standardization is about "this is how we all agree to do it". In general, various I-Ds can be used as input to the (IETF) work. What's the argument for one of the RIRs to publish their API specifications as an Informational document? Regards, -sm From andy@hxr.us Mon Jun 27 07:34:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9271E21F8655 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXQ4Xz2XVAI2 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF86E21F864E for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so273485vxi.31 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.189.76 with SMTP id dd12mr2165668vcb.183.1309185286026; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zx80.arin.net (core.arin.net [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r12sm678329vcq.12.2011.06.27.07.34.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:34:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:34:47 -0000 On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:17 AM, SM wrote: > It's better to keep technical specifications and policy separate. I totally agree. > The document mentions that "IRIS has seen little to no deployment for = various reasons, mostly its complexity compared to WHOIS and some = political and technical inertia". Should this effort go down that path, = it may result in a similar outcome. BTW, some of the text in the = Abstract section is not reflected in the body of the document. >=20 > Whois services are operated by several organizations; gTLDs, ccTLDs, = RIRs, etc. Some of these organizations are not bound by some top-down = policy. Some of them don't even disclose their policies. >=20 > Some of the I-Ds that have been posted are from RIRs. As they have = jumped on the RESTful bandwagon, is there any interest in developing a = different protocol? Thanks for injecting perspective into this thread. With regards to UDP/DNS, I think there are 3 issues being intermingled = here. 1) The use of DNS as protocol infrastructure, such as using SRV or NAPTR = records, use of wildcards, etc.... IRIS does this; it is one of those = things that I believe makes it too complex. None of the single = technologies in IRIS are complex or hard to understand, but taken = together they present a significant implementation/deployment burden. 2) The use case of a protocol for checking if a domain is available for = registration over UDP. This is what DCHK does, and is the only part of = IRIS that has seen real deployment. It is used by some of the ccTLDs. 3) The use case of a protocol for obtaining registration meta-data = useful for real-time reputation services. This is what John was talking = about, DNS records for domain registries to spell out how long a domain = has been registered and when it might expire. I assume this is useful = for fighting spam from bad actors acquiring new domains. John proposes = DNS, which I think makes sense given this specific use case but no other = (there are other anti-abuse use cases for Whois data). > Section 2 of draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 mentions that "the = intent to publish one of the API specifications as a standards track = document, and the remainder (including this memo) as informational = documents". In my book, standardization is about "this is how we all = agree to do it". In general, various I-Ds can be used as input to the = (IETF) work. What's the argument for one of the RIRs to publish their = API specifications as an Informational document? As the author of the ARIN draft, I guess that question might be directed = at me. But I'm not really sure what you are asking. Each RIR could = publish an informational, but what's the point? -andy From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Jun 27 08:00:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8891F0C37 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:00:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdQNWU3JRgs5 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089301F0C35 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3959F1ECB41C for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:31:13 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110627123112.GF97941@shinkuro.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:00:22 -0000 On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:07:41AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that servers SHOULD > provision adequate capacity to respond to the anticipated number of > queries, and SHOULD disclose policies that provide different levels of > service to different categories of clients. I think the goal of this passage is to try to say, "Don't have some lame limit like 3 queries/minute" or something like that. At least one large gTLD registry operator has a very low limit, and it interferes with some users' purposes (yes, one of those purposes is "harvesting", but only one). A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From michael@mwyoung.ca Mon Jun 27 09:05:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9E321F860A for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UgsWWFtbzxzp for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3A821F8608 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4889662vws.31 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.117.16 with SMTP id o16mr2438929vcq.64.1309190735776; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.1.5] (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bd5sm692732vcb.11.2011.06.27.09.05.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:34 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:05:28 -0400 From: MICHAEL YOUNG To: Andrew Sullivan , "weirds@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 In-Reply-To: <20110627123112.GF97941@shinkuro.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:05:37 -0000 I can guess which provider you are hinting at. That same provider (if I am correct on who it is) provides different rate limiting policies for a separate class of user. Right now they do that by running separate server instances and providing IP restricted access, this, to my mind, is a clumsy way to address the issue. I think, given whois has many stakeholders and therefore potentially many use cases, rate-limiting and user classes should be up to the whois operator and its constituents. IMHO this work should enable those choices,....rate-limiting itself is not inherently bad or good, that depends entirely on how and to whom its applied. If you try to prevent it in the protocol, I can safely say you just guaranteed a pretty common protocol violation. -M On 11-06-27 8:31 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:07:41AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > >> Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that servers SHOULD >> provision adequate capacity to respond to the anticipated number of >> queries, and SHOULD disclose policies that provide different levels of >> service to different categories of clients. > >I think the goal of this passage is to try to say, "Don't have some >lame limit like 3 queries/minute" or something like that. At least >one large gTLD registry operator has a very low limit, and it >interferes with some users' purposes (yes, one of those purposes is >"harvesting", but only one). > >A > >-- >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From sm@resistor.net Mon Jun 27 11:19:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30A211E80DD for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2eQunMZLam0 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D28211E8108 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p5RIISUh010611; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:18:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309198720; bh=O6Y9LExfDUbGgR/SB8MtRvWRlKVNtkq9bQkkOH18fc4=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=BDAYejxDU5hZx36rimb8pBlLMpbBi2IriltyDrTe59wKiKZdF5mjAWGrT6NWQ/ket UyxaqmD4fpaZ1O/6DzsNrXpTQjsIVQ2uLlHfkLoOnIxe85jnY5IRKNNVLNnKTbqe1e +AEH9bGTxvxg1HRuRP/nmBUw/oFTvf4hSnRhRwMk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309198720; bh=O6Y9LExfDUbGgR/SB8MtRvWRlKVNtkq9bQkkOH18fc4=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=AhFiPfrsGyo21dcTybPWQoCpgsvVDOW1gEkmdZYY54cE8O95FUvpIKGD5FxKTmAOO 5+jULEzUB8XOqDa/a8DWxUu56wtegROOhpvC7CqQk8k05HGF6fIQ8ZGuuU9s3g4fVk 5vcM+NqQhkXQGHkqRMHRLZKxdeBjjiPV/TrmwQ0U= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:58:19 -0700 To: Andy Newton From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:19:01 -0000 Hi Andy, At 07:34 27-06-2011, Andy Newton wrote: >With regards to UDP/DNS, I think there are 3 issues being intermingled here. > >1) The use of DNS as protocol infrastructure, such as using SRV or >NAPTR records, use of wildcards, etc.... IRIS does this; it is one >of those things that I believe makes it too complex. None of the >single technologies in IRIS are complex or hard to understand, but >taken together they present a significant implementation/deployment burden. There is a learning curve for DDDS as there isn't widespread implementation experience. [snip] >3) The use case of a protocol for obtaining registration meta-data >useful for real-time reputation services. This is what John was >talking about, DNS records for domain registries to spell out how >long a domain has been registered and when it might expire. I assume >this is useful for fighting spam from bad actors acquiring new >domains. John proposes DNS, which I think makes sense given this >specific use case but no other (there are other anti-abuse use cases >for Whois data). Here are some use cases: (i) Day Old Bread domains - The data required is date of registration (ii) Domains contact information - The data required is the contact (iii) Relevant contact information for IP address space that has been allocated The data for cases (ii) and (iii) is not only used for fighting spam; other businesses have sprung up and they consume that data for enforcement, take down notices, etc. The "need" is to provide structured instead of freeform data for public access. There is also data available only through authenticated access. John commented on some of the limits set by DNSBLs (high volume queries). Quoting a message from Jay Daley [1]: "I struggle with a document that gets down to the UDP level before we have agreed what the technology needs to do". draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 is a starting point. The first step is to identify the use cases. It's up to this group (I assume that this is what this group is about) to see whether they can be addressed in practical terms. >As the author of the ARIN draft, I guess that question might be >directed at me. But I'm not really sure what you are asking. Each >RIR could publish an informational, but what's the point? I don't see the point of having a standardized API and ARIN or some other RIR publishing its own API. Are ICANN, ARIN and RIPE okay with implementing the standardized API and not having their own version of the API? Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00022.html From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 27 11:26:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FAF11E8127 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VJG8R3le-B0o for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C08B11E80EF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:26:33 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: SM , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:26:32 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acwz4cMgRB4tmsOvQluluc5FWSc58wBFXX8Q Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:26:34 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:12 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >=20 > Hi Murray, Hi Sub, > I have a few comments about draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00. >=20 > In Section 4.1: >=20 > "A client MAY be able to handle UDP replies, and if the server > provides service with UDP, the client SHOULD attempt a UDP query > prior to a TCP query." >=20 > That sounds like DNS. DNS was one of the possible implementation ideas, but it wasn't the specifi= c target of the requirement. Any lightweight method is what I was trying t= o capture. > In Section 4.2: >=20 > "Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a > particular source MUST NOT be done." >=20 > There is generally a limit on the number of queries as resources are > always a constraint. I think that such a requirement is unrealistic. I said earlier on the list that the point of the requirement is to ensure t= hat the throttling isn't arbitrary. Presuming that someone sending you lot= s of queries must be up to no good removes an important service from partie= s that really need it and are using it legitimately. Specifically, a WHOIS= service provider assuming that just about anyone out there is doing querie= s for the purpose of poaching customers is one of the things that seriously= degrades the value of WHOIS today. -MSK From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Jun 27 11:28:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F8E11E8127 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NoLZQOl4qbev for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79ADE11E80EF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C02081ECB41C for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:28:10 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:28:18 -0000 On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:58:19AM -0700, SM wrote: > other RIR publishing its own API. Are ICANN, ARIN and RIPE okay > with implementing the standardized API and not having their own > version of the API? I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine why anyone would participate in this effort without planning to make something interoperable. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 27 11:28:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C522D11E814B for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fSqB9KkAkTUc for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630C511E8149 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:21 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: John Levine , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:28:20 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw0bxV7ysyHAphBR7SVxpv6NLIGzAAiMJKg Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:28:21 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of John Levine > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:08 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >=20 > All the DNSBLs that are at all popular do rate limiting both for > anti-DDoS and to separate the small free users from the larger paid > users. This seems a wee bit optimistic. >=20 > Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that servers SHOULD > provision adequate capacity to respond to the anticipated number of > queries, and SHOULD disclose policies that provide different levels of > service to different categories of clients. I'd be totally fine with something that says "unlimited (subject to resourc= es) queries that return only this small subset of a registration, but we're= free to rate-limit you for the full data set". I think this would cater s= ufficiently to security service providers while inhibiting customer poachin= g. From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 27 11:31:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A41611E8127 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:31:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZfyQaHMhvxj for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4224611E80EF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:31:36 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: SM , Andy Newton Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:31:34 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw09rJZQiuZ/6unTkSAPb+DJRD4YAAAaJOQ Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:31:36 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:58 AM > To: Andy Newton > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >=20 > I don't see the point of having a standardized API and ARIN or some > other RIR publishing its own API. Are ICANN, ARIN and RIPE okay with > implementing the standardized API and not having their own version of > the API? Such could go directly to Historic status just for the sake of documenting = history and making an explicit statement that people should move toward the= standards track thing. We did that with DomainKeys, for example. From michael@mwyoung.ca Mon Jun 27 11:52:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F81511E807A for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1t85ULQ7E6Rt for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F9611E8076 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so226554gwb.31 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.168.99 with SMTP id j63mr9745914yhl.117.1309200774822; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p45sm3237218yhj.1.2011.06.27.11.52.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" , "'John Levine'" , References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <010801cc34fb$6c02a4d0$4407ee70$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-index: AQJE+p+M5Q6G5ZdVm40hKPcZMVlnqgHnQtsWAaat3f2Tw44UkA== Content-language: en-ca Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:52:57 -0000 >I'd be totally fine with something that says "unlimited (subject to resources) queries that return only this small subset of a registration, but we're free to rate-limit you for the full data set". I think this would cater sufficiently to security service >providers while inhibiting customer poaching. I think don't think we can determine all the reasons "why" a whois operator would rate limit. Therefore I think we can't determine limits or exceptions to said rate limiting. _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Mon Jun 27 11:55:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D4811E809B for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQK0bM7LB61T for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5094E21F85BF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 72608 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2011 18:54:56 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=11b9f.4e08d200.k1106; bh=+ihJWPAm/oy3szhqwMoUUk1vJ5yb6k4H3leIQH2tr+8=; b=iPv9wzq0hTcMwZ+cCwryPPaijTGIvsItGKotW14Rr0oyj/9K3fCfpykL+lm7ym7ZKjrNTreuuus43Rt69bgy1Ev9b2z5asE9pAH/AsXfbI+MgXfvlBdic/PmYD6GvCLB3ULHMzzZL0o2NhaNhrZgJVit/6++RIPVZB4Hrxy3SNg= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 27 Jun 2011 18:54:34 -0000 Date: 27 Jun 2011 14:54:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Michael Young" In-Reply-To: <010801cc34fb$6c02a4d0$4407ee70$@mwyoung.ca> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <010801cc34fb$6c02a4d0$4407ee70$@mwyoung.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:55:05 -0000 > I think don't think we can determine all the reasons "why" a whois operator > would rate limit. Therefore I think we can't determine limits or exceptions > to said rate limiting. I agree. This strikes me as basically a side issue, since WHOIS providers will do rate limiting no matter what we tell them to do. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 27 11:56:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95F821F85BB for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:56:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OH4C1SZNsWaS for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC7821F85B9 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:56:19 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "John R. Levine" , Michael Young Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:56:18 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw0+7X8mIgmxyIWQqSpl6y6CCw3RAAABTzg Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <010801cc34fb$6c02a4d0$4407ee70$@mwyoung.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:56:20 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 11:55 AM > To: Michael Young > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 >=20 > > I think don't think we can determine all the reasons "why" a whois oper= ator > > would rate limit. Therefore I think we can't determine limits or excep= tions > > to said rate limiting. >=20 > I agree. This strikes me as basically a side issue, since WHOIS provider= s > will do rate limiting no matter what we tell them to do. Alas, I probably agree too. I guess this could be relegated to an appendix= where at least this perspective is relayed to the WHOIS providers. From andy@hxr.us Mon Jun 27 12:12:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F3B11E80EF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHRv+iI8hJNN for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF8611E80EA for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so236119gwb.31 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.143.14 with SMTP id v14mr7346795ybn.132.1309201962397; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zx80.home.hxr.us (ip70-179-98-221.dc.dc.cox.net [70.179.98.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c63sm3644278yhe.74.2011.06.27.12.12.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:12:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <596A891C-F07A-4F55-97F3-5DD25291E6E2@hxr.us> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:12:44 -0000 On Jun 27, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:58:19AM -0700, SM wrote: >> other RIR publishing its own API. Are ICANN, ARIN and RIPE okay >> with implementing the standardized API and not having their own >> version of the API? > > I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine why anyone would > participate in this effort without planning to make something > interoperable. Well said. -andy From peter@denic.de Mon Jun 27 23:42:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34AA911E80A9 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:42:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5T6RKynLXjk5 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D4F21F8654 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1QbS05-0006ku-2w; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:42:21 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1QbS04-0001Ht-Vj; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:42:21 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:42:20 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:42:31 -0000 On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:28:10PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine why anyone would > participate in this effort without planning to make something > interoperable. so, how long have you now been around the IETF? ;-) The draft (admittedly a -00) does not focus on interoperability, but attempts to phrase operational or user requirements without clearly stating what constituency's requirements these are. Rate limiting, for one, is a MUST from some data protection authority's angle, so any "requirement" to the contrary is, say, interesting. Actually, back to interoperability, when it says 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other security attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a particular source MUST NOT be done. would a server that acknowledges the connection and sends back a "no, thank you", fulfill the requirement? -Peter From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Jun 28 03:02:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8346811E80AD for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:02:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p5Cg4pK+erLC for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE00B11E8094 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:02:11 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=fl/pUzJdriP40NCBi/QMrOb7oqquuX6SoqW0yiUcJarQ+2OLS6AriszG sQq2bckHm3W4Sv2ef5HqyvekZD65GRSnvfBmibWlb+3Y7bS7VvLV4XriX fMU8vS4oV2Qpr5v; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1309255332; x=1340791332; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=saN689XHsMn2c23SHwJvDl82rLUuuzevktMmcSD0pHw=; b=KEFQf99szYK1eHLN2inuA/7MFvhEO5mR2BwNkgqnF9jukA5WMdkdH9/F 7jhLFwUzO1zZATnr7/C0SYeUgFU2/Ve9Is5roeurC9Ym2rmFTIneBnaRJ SRCOvZIHCmaPpQn; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,436,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="2532996" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-001.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2011 03:02:11 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.52]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:02:11 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Peter Koch Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:02:07 -0600 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw1enH+h83S2HB8ShW9Phufilbj1Q== Message-ID: <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: gUubILm7yAWQxr7tihm7LA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:02:12 -0000 Which data protection authority requires rate limiting? Can you provide the= relevant regulatory language? On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:42 AM, "Peter Koch" wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:28:10PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >=20 >> I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine why anyone would >> participate in this effort without planning to make something >> interoperable. >=20 > so, how long have you now been around the IETF? ;-) >=20 > The draft (admittedly a -00) does not focus on interoperability, > but attempts to phrase operational or user requirements without > clearly stating what constituency's requirements these are. >=20 > Rate limiting, for one, is a MUST from some data protection > authority's angle, so any "requirement" to the contrary is, say, > interesting. Actually, back to interoperability, when it says >=20 > 1. A server MUST accept and process all queries except when in a > defensive posture against a denial-of-service or other security > attack. Limiting the number of queries per time interval from a > particular source MUST NOT be done. >=20 > would a server that acknowledges the connection and sends back a "no, tha= nk > you", fulfill the requirement? >=20 > -Peter > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Tue Jun 28 03:14:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1452621F859A for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:14:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KujG0Geg6zP8 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CB721F8599 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbVIl-0001KR-9P; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:13:51 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:13:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: "Smith, Bill" In-Reply-To: <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:14:00 -0000 Hi Bill On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Smith, Bill wrote: > Which data protection authority requires rate limiting? Can you provide > the relevant regulatory language? At least for .ch domain names there is such a regulatory requirement (art 14h bis AEFV) that leads to rate limiting for whois service: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/784_104/a14h.html [German] http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/784_104/a14h.html [French] http://www.admin.ch/ch/i/rs/784_104/a14h.html [Italian] [Sorry, no English version.] cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Technology From michele@blacknight.ie Tue Jun 28 03:20:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EE721F85E4 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:20:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xv9DCtivsAOY for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087EF21F85BD for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bkexchmbx02.blacknight.local ([fe80::d4d7:819a:4fb5:c923]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:19:58 +0100 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: Bernie Hoeneisen Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: AQHMM+HLeoqhPBpO4EawR3RC3z2dWpTQZXaAgABnT4CAAGlnAIAAOOSAgAAIVwCAAM0gAIAAN9KAgAADR4CAAAG0gA== Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:19:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2a01:a8:ff01:0:cabc:c8ff:fea6:ee0b] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <9ADACA52675B7F4FA3BDD37B68A04DDF@blacknight.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:20:04 -0000 On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:13, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Hi Bill >=20 > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Smith, Bill wrote: >=20 >> Which data protection authority requires rate limiting? Can you provide = the relevant regulatory language? >=20 > At least for .ch domain names there is such a regulatory requirement > (art 14h bis AEFV) that leads to rate limiting for whois service: >=20 > http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/784_104/a14h.html [German] > http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/784_104/a14h.html [French] > http://www.admin.ch/ch/i/rs/784_104/a14h.html [Italian] >=20 > [Sorry, no English version.] Bernie That doesn't say anything about rate limiting that I can see.=20 Looking at the French version I see: "Le registre prend des mesures ad=E9quates afin d=92emp=EAcher une utilisat= ion abusive des donn=E9es mises =E0 la disposition du public, en particulie= r leur utilisation =E0 des fins de publicit=E9 ou de promotion commerciale.= " That's pretty much the same as the "no marketing / no abuse" clause in ICAN= N's RAA. Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://b.log.ie/ http://invadeeurope.eu/ http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/ http://rss.me/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612=20 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.m= e/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Jun 28 03:25:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA8A21F85F8 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.817 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.817 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wufqQVakoe2h for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D53121F8500 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:25:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:Received: From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index: Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:Return-Path:X-EMS-Proccessed:X-EMS-STAMP: X-CFilter; b=vFI5zMP+ivAm01DNwyQdsT/WhZRuZHPam1wLPfjndZ8Ek1qty5+7F8cr bfyHoFfAm3WprFa6OsRQYe0EzHHlK3XFc8Isi6jpOqQanpE3lulOjdWYh Y9kD53gIxgyW5If; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1309256714; x=1340792714; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mtxA2HP5F9DVgQJgGIWqq+/D3JTK8qh7WMWM/eSt75s=; b=X72XjRR/SWOcv/eAd/1sMppZnKWLyndWPp1ByB+reulIa/C/iVIxiVwn B0aqugRUxwZPLt46Ryvbp4vrtlwPn0LU+FC2YtklW2bdJjbAEGitxrK+R +y5pMnYNZv4mQHN; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,437,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="3018679" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2011 03:25:14 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXHT-004.corp.ebay.com (10.241.17.60) by DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com (10.241.17.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:25:13 -0600 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-004.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.60]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:25:13 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:25:10 -0600 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw1fao2uf9CnJ1kTbKKXxwyhEgXaA== Message-ID: <1DC6370A-BFCC-492E-BF4F-7B8D9C36B22D@paypal-inc.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMS-Proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== X-EMS-STAMP: Yh5VJdrtKw1c5g3tGRVmUg== X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:25:15 -0000 SXQgYWxsIGhpbmdlcyBvbiBob3cgImFkZXF1YXRlIG1lYXN1cmVzIiBpcyBkZWZpbmVkLg0KDQpT ZW50IGZyb20gbXkgaVBob25lDQoNCk9uIEp1biAyOCwgMjAxMSwgYXQgMTI6MjAgUE0sICJNaWNo ZWxlIE5leWxvbiA6OiBCbGFja25pZ2h0IiA8bWljaGVsZUBibGFja25pZ2h0LmllPiB3cm90ZToN Cg0KPiANCj4gT24gMjggSnVuIDIwMTEsIGF0IDExOjEzLCBCZXJuaWUgSG9lbmVpc2VuIHdyb3Rl Og0KPiANCj4+IEhpIEJpbGwNCj4+IA0KPj4gT24gVHVlLCAyOCBKdW4gMjAxMSwgU21pdGgsIEJp bGwgd3JvdGU6DQo+PiANCj4+PiBXaGljaCBkYXRhIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gYXV0aG9yaXR5IHJlcXVp cmVzIHJhdGUgbGltaXRpbmc/IENhbiB5b3UgcHJvdmlkZSB0aGUgcmVsZXZhbnQgcmVndWxhdG9y eSBsYW5ndWFnZT8NCj4+IA0KPj4gQXQgbGVhc3QgZm9yIC5jaCBkb21haW4gbmFtZXMgdGhlcmUg aXMgc3VjaCBhIHJlZ3VsYXRvcnkgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQNCj4+IChhcnQgMTRoIGJpcyBBRUZWKSB0 aGF0IGxlYWRzIHRvIHJhdGUgbGltaXRpbmcgZm9yIHdob2lzIHNlcnZpY2U6DQo+PiANCj4+IGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuYWRtaW4uY2gvY2gvZC9zci83ODRfMTA0L2ExNGguaHRtbCBbR2VybWFuXQ0KPj4g aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hZG1pbi5jaC9jaC9mL3JzLzc4NF8xMDQvYTE0aC5odG1sIFtGcmVuY2hdDQo+ PiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmFkbWluLmNoL2NoL2kvcnMvNzg0XzEwNC9hMTRoLmh0bWwgW0l0YWxpYW5d DQo+PiANCj4+IFtTb3JyeSwgbm8gRW5nbGlzaCB2ZXJzaW9uLl0NCj4gDQo+IEJlcm5pZQ0KPiAN Cj4gVGhhdCBkb2Vzbid0IHNheSBhbnl0aGluZyBhYm91dCByYXRlIGxpbWl0aW5nIHRoYXQgSSBj YW4gc2VlLiANCj4gDQo+IExvb2tpbmcgYXQgdGhlIEZyZW5jaCB2ZXJzaW9uIEkgc2VlOg0KPiAN Cj4gIkxlIHJlZ2lzdHJlIHByZW5kIGRlcyBtZXN1cmVzIGFkw6lxdWF0ZXMgYWZpbiBk4oCZZW1w w6pjaGVyIHVuZSB1dGlsaXNhdGlvbiBhYnVzaXZlIGRlcyBkb25uw6llcyBtaXNlcyDDoCBsYSBk aXNwb3NpdGlvbiBkdSBwdWJsaWMsIGVuIHBhcnRpY3VsaWVyIGxldXIgdXRpbGlzYXRpb24gw6Ag ZGVzIGZpbnMgZGUgcHVibGljaXTDqSBvdSBkZSBwcm9tb3Rpb24gY29tbWVyY2lhbGUuIg0KPiAN Cj4gVGhhdCdzIHByZXR0eSBtdWNoIHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIHRoZSAibm8gbWFya2V0aW5nIC8gbm8g YWJ1c2UiIGNsYXVzZSBpbiBJQ0FOTidzIFJBQS4NCj4gDQo+IFJlZ2FyZHMNCj4gDQo+IE1pY2hl bGUNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBNciBNaWNoZWxlIE5leWxvbg0KPiBCbGFja25pZ2h0IFNvbHV0aW9ucw0K PiBIb3N0aW5nICYgQ29sb2NhdGlvbiwgQnJhbmQgUHJvdGVjdGlvbg0KPiBJQ0FOTiBBY2NyZWRp dGVkIFJlZ2lzdHJhcg0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJsYWNrbmlnaHQuY29tLw0KPiBodHRwOi8vYmxv Zy5ibGFja25pZ2h0LmNvbS8NCj4gaHR0cDovL2IubG9nLmllLw0KPiBodHRwOi8vaW52YWRlZXVy b3BlLmV1Lw0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdldHRpbmdidXNpbmVzc29ubGluZS5pZS8NCj4gaHR0cDov L3Jzcy5tZS8NCj4gaHR0cDovL21uZXlsb24udGVsDQo+IEludGwuICszNTMgKDApIDU5ICA5MTgz MDcyDQo+IFVTOiAyMTMtMjMzLTE2MTIgDQo+IFVLOiAwODQ0IDQ4NCA5MzYxDQo+IExvY2FsbDog MTg1MCA5MjkgOTI5DQo+IERpcmVjdCBEaWFsOiArMzUzICgwKTU5IDkxODMwOTANCj4gVHdpdHRl cjogaHR0cDovL3R3aXR0ZXIuY29tL21uZXlsb24NCj4gDQo+IFBTOiBDaGVjayBvdXQgb3VyIGxh dGVzdCBvZmZlcnMgb24gZG9tYWlucyAmIGhvc3Rpbmc6IGh0dHA6Ly9kb21haW5vZmZlcnMubWUv DQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gQmxhY2tuaWdodCBJbnRlcm5l dCBTb2x1dGlvbnMgTHRkLCBVbml0IDEyQSxCYXJyb3dzaWRlIEJ1c2luZXNzIFBhcmssU2xlYXR5 DQo+IFJvYWQsR3JhaWd1ZWN1bGxlbixDYXJsb3csSXJlbGFuZCAgQ29tcGFueSBOby46IDM3MDg0 NQ0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0K From michele@blacknight.ie Tue Jun 28 03:33:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AF821F8654 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:33:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eEEddLPm0C6U for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A8D21F8652 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bkexchmbx02.blacknight.local ([fe80::d4d7:819a:4fb5:c923]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:57 +0100 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: "Smith, Bill" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: AQHMM+HLeoqhPBpO4EawR3RC3z2dWpTQZXaAgABnT4CAAGlnAIAAOOSAgAAIVwCAAM0gAIAAN9KAgAADR4CAAAG0gIAAAXUAgAACLAA= Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:32:56 +0000 Message-ID: <367DA5AD-ACBE-4B4C-B241-787ABC3BCB00@blacknight.ie> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> <1DC6370A-BFCC-492E-BF4F-7B8D9C36B22D@paypal-inc.com> In-Reply-To: <1DC6370A-BFCC-492E-BF4F-7B8D9C36B22D@paypal-inc.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2a01:a8:ff01:0:cabc:c8ff:fea6:ee0b] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:33:01 -0000 On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:25, Smith, Bill wrote: > It all hinges on how "adequate measures" is defined. Which it probably isn't ..=20 Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://b.log.ie/ http://invadeeurope.eu/ http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/ http://rss.me/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612=20 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.m= e/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From aservin@lacnic.net Tue Jun 28 04:34:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78EF921F85F0 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:34:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.033 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jWMz0fsdfOmP for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8042721F85EA for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (r186-48-204-242.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.204.242]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4362230843E; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:33:52 -0300 (UYT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <367DA5AD-ACBE-4B4C-B241-787ABC3BCB00@blacknight.ie> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:33:51 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <038B86A1-FD50-4288-84D4-784088D70BBA@lacnic.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> <1DC6370A-BFCC-492E-BF4F-7B8D9C36B22D@paypal-inc.com> <367DA5AD-ACBE-4B4C-B241-787ABC3BCB00@blacknight.ie> To: Michele@ietfa.amsl.com, "Neylon:"@ietfa.amsl.com:Blacknight X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:34:05 -0000 On 28 Jun 2011, at 07:32, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: >=20 > On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:25, Smith, Bill wrote: >=20 >> It all hinges on how "adequate measures" is defined. >=20 > Which it probably isn't ..=20 But it is easy and cheap. Try to substitute that with something complex and expensive and = your interoperability will go no where. -as= From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Jun 28 05:02:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0014621F85A3 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.967 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQ76cryzL7Cz for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B1521F8588 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:02:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=SqzrnhlRvraRQZ0Mr/3h/Uxm3U7qbWuyB3B1vXsjeMHedHh5A5O0Ancm CDopne6zn7fdRpxtG8eDtadxGR+/vOAw7fn/NNMpAqvgJxJuUQBFa3Pnu OkHg6sJ5ZzhcK/Y; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1309262557; x=1340798557; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DrAD/1OzC6QkALSRI2JmAizzLBSpq/scVb95ZJ41fqE=; b=XunfO4bzGfPMKhjPc+AjUihDm0nB7SEiweAKYEfn0ok0Chvp37HUUP3n kBkwBbwQvqddddXndr/Ir4mtWiINtYkcQ69kLDnSZt5+b2KP9v6xj9Jwj w0SMugGEkxgNMQd; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,437,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="3018963" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2011 05:02:36 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.53]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:02:36 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Arturo Servin Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:02:32 -0600 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw1i0Sjp+A6MITtQa+gc/m/HfvE5A== Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> <1DC6370A-BFCC-492E-BF4F-7B8D9C36B22D@paypal-inc.com> <367DA5AD-ACBE-4B4C-B241-787ABC3BCB00@blacknight.ie> <038B86A1-FD50-4288-84D4-784088D70BBA@lacnic.net> In-Reply-To: <038B86A1-FD50-4288-84D4-784088D70BBA@lacnic.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: BGCiSdklq2/+XZvGBF2zvQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:02:40 -0000 It may be easy and cheap, but that does *not* make it a regulatory mandate. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:34 PM, "Arturo Servin" wrote: >=20 > On 28 Jun 2011, at 07:32, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:25, Smith, Bill wrote: >>=20 >>> It all hinges on how "adequate measures" is defined. >>=20 >> Which it probably isn't ..=20 >=20 > But it is easy and cheap. >=20 > Try to substitute that with something complex and expensive and your i= nteroperability will go no where. >=20 >=20 > -as From aservin@lacnic.net Tue Jun 28 05:25:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC21111E807E for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57TiHu+kk3Rp for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4298821F8519 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [200.7.85.188]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57943308436; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:24:49 -0300 (UYT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:24:48 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> <1DC6370A-BFCC-492E-BF4F-7B8D9C36B22D@paypal-inc.com> <367DA5AD-ACBE-4B4C-B241-787ABC3BCB00@blacknight.ie> <038B86A1-FD50-4288-84D4-784088D70BBA@lacnic.net> To: "Smith, Bill" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:25:31 -0000 On 28 Jun 2011, at 09:02, Smith, Bill wrote: > It may be easy and cheap, but that does *not* make it a regulatory = mandate. Totally agree with that. -as >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 > On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:34 PM, "Arturo Servin" = wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On 28 Jun 2011, at 07:32, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:25, Smith, Bill wrote: >>>=20 >>>> It all hinges on how "adequate measures" is defined. >>>=20 >>> Which it probably isn't ..=20 >>=20 >> But it is easy and cheap. >>=20 >> Try to substitute that with something complex and expensive and = your interoperability will go no where. >>=20 >>=20 >> -as From andy@arin.net Tue Jun 28 07:56:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718BC11E80EE for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:56:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fCIO0MLOFASA for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A484211E80DA for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id C24B9213685; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933DE213681 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:56:14 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.120]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:56:21 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: bar bof for Quebec Thread-Index: Acw1o2lPGVlJEe7+Rq2b4y3i7xk3Yw== Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:56:20 +0000 Message-ID: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.30.32] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:56:30 -0000 Given that we do not have an official BoF for IETF 81, is there any thought= to a bar BoF? -andy From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Jun 28 08:07:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEAE11E80CA for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95+CzKYrh1cq for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC04E11E8088 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FA4F1ECB420 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:07:50 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110628150750.GE4642@shinkuro.com> References: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:07:53 -0000 On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:56:20PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: > Given that we do not have an official BoF for IETF 81, is there any thought to a bar BoF? > I think so. I'm willing to organize this, if people like. I thought I'd ask for a room, but I was waiting until the 1st (because that's the day the final agenda is published). What are plausible candidates for people to make it? I currently don't have any evenings tied up (which is a first for me this close to a meeting). A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From andy@arin.net Tue Jun 28 08:47:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25C921F8591 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:47:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E40TZc2ztbP7 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFAD21F86AF for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 168B9213686; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2ADA213683; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.19) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:47:12 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.120]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:47:20 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: 'Andrew Sullivan' , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec Thread-Index: Acw1o2lPGVlJEe7+Rq2b4y3i7xk3YwAI0MkAAAcGrgA= Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:47:19 +0000 Message-ID: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323CD38@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> References: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> <20110628150750.GE4642@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: <20110628150750.GE4642@shinkuro.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.30.32] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:47:32 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Andrew Sullivan >=20 > What are plausible candidates for people to make it? I currently don't h= ave > any evenings tied up (which is a first for me this close to a meeting). I'd prefer later in the week if possible. -andy From johnl@iecc.com Tue Jun 28 10:10:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EC511E80F4 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.889 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihyTtYaqp0iK for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9654C228006 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5222 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 17:10:21 -0000 Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2011 17:10:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 72275 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 17:10:21 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Jun 2011 17:10:21 -0000 Date: 28 Jun 2011 17:09:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20110628170959.61889.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20110628150750.GE4642@shinkuro.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:10:26 -0000 >What are plausible candidates for people to make it? I currently >don't have any evenings tied up (which is a first for me this close to >a meeting). I'll be there M-F, airlines permitting. R's, John From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Tue Jun 28 10:20:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DA621F8608 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixrZWkHhm+Lu for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF03C21F8606 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbbxP-0001qF-Gz; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:20:15 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:20:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="37663318-302642729-1309281615=:6840" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:20:25 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --37663318-302642729-1309281615=:6840 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=Windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi Michele & Bill You might want to have a closer look into the corresponding implementation= =20 policies issued by the regulator (SR 784.101.113/2.13 art 8): http://www.bakom.admin.ch/org/grundlagen/00563/00564/00681/index.html?lan= g=3Dde http://www.bakom.admin.ch/org/grundlagen/00563/00564/00681/index.html?lan= g=3Dfr http://www.bakom.admin.ch/org/grundlagen/00563/00564/00681/index.html?lan= g=3Dit There it explicitly specifies the rate limitation to be applied by the=20 registry: "Beschr=E4nkung des Zugriffs auf den Whois-Dienst von der gleichen und/od= er =E4hnlichen IP-Adresse auf 40 Zugriffe pro 10 Minuten;" in English: "Limitation of access to the Whois service from the same and/or a similar IP-Adresse to 40 queries per 10 minutes;" cheers, Bernie On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > > On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:13, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > >> Hi Bill >> >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Smith, Bill wrote: >> >>> Which data protection authority requires rate limiting? Can you provide= the relevant regulatory language? >> >> At least for .ch domain names there is such a regulatory requirement >> (art 14h bis AEFV) that leads to rate limiting for whois service: >> >> http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/784_104/a14h.html [German] >> http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/784_104/a14h.html [French] >> http://www.admin.ch/ch/i/rs/784_104/a14h.html [Italian] >> >> [Sorry, no English version.] > > Bernie > > That doesn't say anything about rate limiting that I can see. > > Looking at the French version I see: > > "Le registre prend des mesures ad=E9quates afin d=92emp=EAcher une utilis= ation abusive des donn=E9es mises =E0 la disposition du public, en particul= ier leur utilisation =E0 des fins de publicit=E9 ou de promotion commercial= e." > > That's pretty much the same as the "no marketing / no abuse" clause in IC= ANN's RAA. > > Regards > > Michele > > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > ICANN Accredited Registrar > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://b.log.ie/ > http://invadeeurope.eu/ > http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/ > http://rss.me/ > http://mneylon.tel > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > UK: 0844 484 9361 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > > PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers= =2Eme/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Slea= ty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > > --37663318-302642729-1309281615=:6840-- From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Jun 28 11:01:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA0111E80F4 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.286, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-YdonbsnVeP for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D66A11E80B5 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:01:36 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "'weirds@ietf.org'" Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:01:35 -0700 Thread-Topic: bar bof for Quebec Thread-Index: Acw1o2lPGVlJEe7+Rq2b4y3i7xk3YwAGfFOQ Message-ID: References: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> In-Reply-To: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:01:37 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andy Newton > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:56 AM > To: 'weirds@ietf.org' > Subject: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec >=20 > Given that we do not have an official BoF for IETF 81, is there any > thought to a bar BoF? Yes, please. And like Andrew, right now I have most of my evenings open (c= urrently only Sunday is busy). From johnl@iecc.com Tue Jun 28 11:38:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22F611E80EE for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.967 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nvw1KILTxXsB for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7489411E8165 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5959 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 18:38:49 -0000 Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2011 18:38:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 95525 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 18:38:49 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Jun 2011 18:38:49 -0000 Date: 28 Jun 2011 18:38:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20110628183827.86548.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] rate limiting et al, Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:38:58 -0000 It seems to me that it is a simple fact that people who run WHOIS servers provide more access to some clients than to others. That doesn't mean they're evil, it means that too many of the people trying to do high rate queries are. We all know that spammers scrape WHOIS, I get paper junk mail all the time to addresses that have never appeared anywhere other than WHOIS. With this in mind, it would be nice if clients known to the WHOIS operator could identify themselves in ways less kludgy than keying it to an IP address. R's, John From michael@mwyoung.ca Tue Jun 28 13:04:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD31111E8177 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:04:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r9YHrR0aQWTc for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4685811E8173 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gya6 with SMTP id 6so294027gya.31 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.74.13 with SMTP id w13mr5352484ana.15.1309291439874; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [25.2.144.48] ([74.198.9.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6sm412800ann.51.2011.06.28.13.03.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:03:58 -0700 (PDT) References: <20110628183827.86548.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110628183827.86548.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8J2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8J2) From: Michael Young Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:03:44 -0400 To: John Levine Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] rate limiting et al, Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:04:02 -0000 I agree! Michael Young M:647-289-1220 On 2011-06-28, at 14:38, "John Levine" wrote: > It seems to me that it is a simple fact that people who run WHOIS > servers provide more access to some clients than to others. That > doesn't mean they're evil, it means that too many of the people trying > to do high rate queries are. We all know that spammers scrape WHOIS, > I get paper junk mail all the time to addresses that have never > appeared anywhere other than WHOIS. > > With this in mind, it would be nice if clients known to the WHOIS > operator could identify themselves in ways less kludgy than keying > it to an IP address. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From sm@resistor.net Wed Jun 29 02:11:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FADA21F861F for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:11:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XTMH-bqgvqjJ for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530B021F861A for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p5T9AuvY017121 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:11:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309338661; bh=U5wmgq05oS3W+NvewTG7P0wUFYlcKx3N8+r7f3nKpiA=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=yAFuHbqLSiVvgIt/VyA4vqv+BQcIEsNuEj/knzvUVPvPVBQ1Lv8/NXJ1KmvOytfy1 wgFhJ64QHJHiz2ENbUvqGvCFmdpdHjVzfe18wEjNEM5g4PmSR+yW7Ow7us6RXJLzux 3Pu+X3BghqI9ad7SqjXWIvHloAeFMzRjz0QYhbPY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309338661; bh=U5wmgq05oS3W+NvewTG7P0wUFYlcKx3N8+r7f3nKpiA=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=HR/sZDR4mK+8vtV1PzEwp1z66O8wdx2nf7Ct/Auw4DDg27CiMvJ3SzU4h9bqSZ1ka c2sbvBDrEsMJlIzsxo1Hbs4I6MHkvOYCqV77i5Mj/cLNWbhBHdO4l18ln8mvT5yWie JEfcDqIsHoZ9YSj/8SidCTjhpXuArVqCvqm/DCII= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110629001902.0593eba0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:55:34 -0700 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:11:11 -0000 At 03:19 28-06-2011, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: >That's pretty much the same as the "no marketing / no abuse" clause >in ICANN's RAA. I gather that the RAA document is the one at http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm The last compliance report mentions that: - Most registrars provide access to Whois data in a manner reasonably compliant with Section 3.3 of the RAA; representing a 99% compliance rate - Out of 970+ accredited registrars, 11 registrars had non-functioning Whois service. - Five registrars had overly aggressive rate-limiting policies. Whois usage is commonly brought up in discussions about port 43 (e.g. draft-brunner-rfc954-historic). I'll quote some text from denic.de: "This data has to be made publicly available for several reasons. One evident reason is that it must be possible to contact domain holders if their domains as such or the use of them cause technical difficulties that might lead to disturbances for others." From nominet.co.uk: "The WHOIS makes it easier to identify the legal registrant of a domain name and should therefore help build more confidence in the use of the Internet." I'll leave it to whoever knows the answer to elaborate on whether the RAA covers, for example, these two operators of Whois services. The discussion about variants ( see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg11080.html ) might shine some light on the scope of a somewhat similar problem. In the words of Viviane Reding, "I always meet people who are astonished that Christmas is on the 25th of December". Regards, -sm From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Wed Jun 29 03:12:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E6A9E802A for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 03:12:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.017 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id een6EvwmUhta for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 03:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCDD9E8024 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 03:12:03 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=keYFSFUBRzA3bR8kcxScCqhIgBwtbtRfsDQdXYUFaj2Yfqf39ZBpK7wn vAU/GQV/A/94+oFEczfWu8ynUfJ7SJ+Zrs96JJonyvfDJEKoNvWFE1dhd s+YJBad9HW38qgL; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1309342323; x=1340878323; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=7OsRnYyT+ODPBGek2jrsM6veJfwBZXIkBr9JnmwNgro=; b=VNsS5LI2wob2QABusDUjLuZqzJ0qj0W5qpd1BxU931cJ3rBRohz5tqNe tysKziXkgIwyhxyel3IhQITx6MdVZmlF+0rJqiuQixlMhlFg9Jdtdht+O pAVkSnvUPnPlAnW; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,442,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="3032651" Received: from den-vtenf-002.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.213]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2011 03:12:03 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.54]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 04:12:03 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: SM Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 04:11:58 -0600 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 Thread-Index: Acw2RP1NqYvuVywSQuCEmZYdAbQNmA== Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626015416.0250b900@elandnews.com> <20110627020741.3137.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627000934.037b75c0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110627092539.04d4a7c8@resistor.net> <20110627182810.GN97941@shinkuro.com> <20110628064220.GO10707@x27.adm.denic.de> <623F4DB2-E64F-414B-B23F-DBF576D8BC2B@paypal.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110629001902.0593eba0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110629001902.0593eba0@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: W2g2YN1lIUqpc5LCtvyyDQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:12:04 -0000 Country code top level domains sit outside ICANN's purview. Each ccTLD sets= it's own WHOIS policy. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:11 AM, "SM" wrote: > At 03:19 28-06-2011, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: >> That's pretty much the same as the "no marketing / no abuse" clause=20 >> in ICANN's RAA. >=20 > I gather that the RAA document is the one at=20 > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm >=20 > The last compliance report mentions that: >=20 > - Most registrars provide access to Whois data in a manner reasonably > compliant with Section 3.3 of the RAA; representing a 99% compliance = rate >=20 > - Out of 970+ accredited registrars, 11 registrars had non-functioning = Whois > service. >=20 > - Five registrars had overly aggressive rate-limiting policies. >=20 > Whois usage is commonly brought up in discussions about port 43 (e.g.=20 > draft-brunner-rfc954-historic). I'll quote some text from denic.de: >=20 > "This data has to be made publicly available for several reasons. One > evident reason is that it must be possible to contact domain holders i= f > their domains as such or the use of them cause technical difficulties > that might lead to disturbances for others." >=20 > From nominet.co.uk: >=20 > "The WHOIS makes it easier to identify the legal registrant of a domain > name and should therefore help build more confidence in the use of the > Internet." >=20 > I'll leave it to whoever knows the answer to elaborate on whether the=20 > RAA covers, for example, these two operators of Whois services. The=20 > discussion about variants ( see=20 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg11080.html )=20 > might shine some light on the scope of a somewhat similar problem. >=20 > In the words of Viviane Reding, "I always meet people who are=20 > astonished that Christmas is on the 25th of December". >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From warren@kumari.net Wed Jun 29 19:36:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A0221F863B for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:36:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ya3KEOyDBxYP for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7490F21F8632 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.0.137] (unknown [113.20.74.166]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EF471B404D4; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <20110628150750.GE4642@shinkuro.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:36:22 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <65B9A86C-7267-43B6-A445-45A0CB9AB6F6@kumari.net> References: <62D9228640AC7F49B2DD9ED0C9CE60E51323BC74@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> <20110628150750.GE4642@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] bar bof for Quebec X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:36:33 -0000 On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:56:20PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: >> Given that we do not have an official BoF for IETF 81, is there any = thought to a bar BoF? >>=20 >=20 > I think so. I'm willing to organize this, if people like. I thought > I'd ask for a room, but I was waiting until the 1st (because that's > the day the final agenda is published). >=20 > What are plausible candidates for people to make it? I currently > don't have any evenings tied up (which is a first for me this close to > a meeting). Whenever=85 preferably not on social night. >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20