From dave.piscitello@icann.org Mon Oct 3 07:37:38 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 7420421F8B26 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.768, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXw15T0XnPeW for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:37:33 -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 B0A2F21F8B1A for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:37:33 -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; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:40:35 -0700 From: Dave Piscitello To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:40:29 -0700 Thread-Topic: Article on RESTful based directory services at USENIX ;login Thread-Index: AcyB2mjyUsAzv2KUSvCzddB/igAHAw== Message-ID: References: <20110929141918.GD29036@shinkuro.com> <20110929161958.93766.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] Article on RESTful based directory services at USENIX ; login 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, 03 Oct 2011 14:37:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All hello, Andy Newton, Steve Sheng, Benedetto Fiorelli and I have published an articl= e at USENIX ;login=20 A RESTful Web Service for Internet Name and Address Directory Services http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2011-10/openpdfs/Newton.pdf I've written a executive summary at: A RESTful Web Service for Domain Name and IP Directory Services http://securityskeptic.typepad.com/the-security-skeptic/2011/10/a-restful-w= eb-service-for-domain-name-and-ip-directory-services.html Regards, Dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOicliAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNUT4H/1IaHz7JAIWCOBhO7AXT3gfV sOk+rVH3TtynTouwQUxpWg5iyx7RRqAHndgkyGgWe6dLpn/SyjCazKrtX/dyooLk Bh3XAPVlv9yGWpkFFdlleRjVA7UX2PEdI1ghQGI8lM8+F5dQDrbulhAoYC6LCo8Z Yka9jvzIgSJF0qOWew+1yi0I5VyUn78Y0xB8usgAN/rAzabZnatolDR/WwQlOWbR 4BFdAVVuwc2bR0u2bnoeROmpa9Df9tRboiKDG5djQrAf0kWRiltV1q6LLzV+xATR M0xAHd6KRHW9eADycEd9Z4AxC4MBwN7m8B+5QXIMxffqPczHDELD0QXCexAtIp4=3D =3DapK+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Oct 3 09:37:34 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 5485621F8B61 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:37:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deWPCKb9hdQG for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2C221F8772 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AB701ECB41F for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:40:35 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="jho1yZJdad60DJr+" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:37:34 -0000 --jho1yZJdad60DJr+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Dear colleagues, Today I submitted the attached as a request for a BOF. I'm also updating the BOF section of the IETF wiki. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --jho1yZJdad60DJr+ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:18:14 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: agenda@ietf.org Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com Subject: BOF request IETF 82: WEIRDS Message-ID: <20111003161814.GE53886@shinkuro.com> Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hello, This is a request for a BOF session at IETF 82, for WEIRDS: (WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service). This is a request for a BOF in the Applications Area. The ADs for the area are copied on this mail. Murray S. Kucherawy has volunteered to co-chair the BOF with me (Andrew Sullivan, ). We have a mailing list: The purpose of the BOF is to determine whether there is a reason to start a working group to undertake this work. The work aims at a replacement for WHOIS to be delivered as a RESTful service, with an eye to avoiding a number of the issues that have prevented IRIS deployment as a WHOIS replacement. The impetus for this work is the existence of three already-deployed experimental services along these lines, and the burgeoning number of IDN TLDs in the domain name system root zone. A full proposed charter is attached to this message. Here are the drafts we know about on the topic: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws-00.txt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-01.txt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00.txt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-newton-weirds-arin-whoisrws-00.txt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt Here is the proposed agenda for the BOF: 0. Agenda bashing. 1. A very quick review of the background. 2. A pointer to the drafts about actual deployments, but not discussion of these. 3. A very quick overview of the then-extant requirements draft. 4. Questions for discussion (at least 30 mins): a. Is this a problem to be solved? b. Is the problem statement in the proposed charter clear enough? c. Do we think we can solve the problem? d. Are there people willing to work on the problem? I will upload all these materials to the tools BOF wiki, also. CONFLICTS I'd like to avoid conflicting with the APPSAWG, DANE, DNSOP (and DNSEXT, but we're not having a meeting), EAI, PRECIS, OPSAWG, and V6OPS. Secondarily, I'd like to avoid conflicts with GROW, URNBIS and IRI. There are other conflicts that would be bad, but all of those groups I expect to have significant populations that overlap our target population. (Basically, the conflict list includes anyone who uses WHOIS for anything, and anyone who might want to use WHOIS for something if it were usable for that -- so the entire anti-abuse community, for instance. I know there are probably additional bad conflicts, but I've tried to keep the list under control.) POSSIBLE ATTENDANCE We didn't have previous a previous meeting and therefore have no previous attendance numbers. We had a side meeting in Québec, and counted about 40 people in the room. There was also significant interest in the topic when we had a few minutes for discussion in the APPSAWG meeting, so this leads me to believe that a target of 60 or 75 people is not unreasonable (especially considering how BOFs lately seem to be badly oversubscribed). I cannot imagine attracting more than 150 people, and think it would be a bad sign of tourism if we did. We have no special requests. We would like one session. Given our agenda, I would prefer two hours, because I expect discussion to range widely (this is based partly on the amount of discussion that happened in the APPSAWG in Quebec, which surprised me). I'm aware of the difficulty of scheduling, however, and we can do it in one hour if need be. 2.5 hours would be too much time. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2011-09-30a Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick & Peter Saint-Andre Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both numbers and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some of the registry database. Most registries offer the service via WHOIS (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC 2622). A conspicuous problem with WHOIS is that it has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. The current collection of WHOIS service specific signalling, widely varying response formats, and error reporting already inhibits automatic processing of WHOIS output. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model at all: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Finally, WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among clients and offer different information to different classes of user. Various attempts to solve limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. In response to these facts, some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Three such efforts have been undertaken, and more may be anticipated in response to the increased deployment of IDNA. The Working Group shall undertake to document the existing efforts, to determine the general needs of such a service; and to standardize a single data framework, to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others: 1. Complete support for internationalization of queries and responses, including a standard representation for IDNs and non-ASCII text in queries and responses, and ways to indicate language or character set preferences for responses. The Working Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is an appropriate selector. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model that allows for the (current) developments of innovations in TLDs and in number registries. 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user. It is expected that more than one data profile will need to be developed to be used in different service environments (e.g. number registry versus name registry). The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit future developments in the served registries. One possible outcome of the requirements development stage will be that the WG concludes that using one protocol for name and number registries is an error, in which case two different but probably basically similar protocols will be developed. Milestones [TBD] Drafts outlining existing deployments to IESG for publication as Informational RFCs. [TBD] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. [TBD] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. [TBD] Draft WEIRDS object specifications to IESG for publication on the standards track. --jho1yZJdad60DJr+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wierds-charter-20110930a.txt" WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2011-09-30a Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick & Peter Saint-Andre Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both numbers and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some of the registry database. Most registries offer the service via WHOIS (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC 2622). A conspicuous problem with WHOIS is that it has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. The current collection of WHOIS service specific signalling, widely varying response formats, and error reporting already inhibits automatic processing of WHOIS output. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model at all: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Finally, WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among clients and offer different information to different classes of user. Various attempts to solve limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. In response to these facts, some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Three such efforts have been undertaken, and more may be anticipated in response to the increased deployment of IDNA. The Working Group shall undertake to document the existing efforts, to determine the general needs of such a service; and to standardize a single data framework, to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others: 1. Complete support for internationalization of queries and responses, including a standard representation for IDNs and non-ASCII text in queries and responses, and ways to indicate language or character set preferences for responses. The Working Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is an appropriate selector. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model that allows for the (current) developments of innovations in TLDs and in number registries. 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user. It is expected that more than one data profile will need to be developed to be used in different service environments (e.g. number registry versus name registry). The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit future developments in the served registries. One possible outcome of the requirements development stage will be that the WG concludes that using one protocol for name and number registries is an error, in which case two different but probably basically similar protocols will be developed. Milestones [TBD] Drafts outlining existing deployments to IESG for publication as Informational RFCs. [TBD] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. [TBD] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. [TBD] Draft WEIRDS object specifications to IESG for publication on the standards track. --jho1yZJdad60DJr+-- From dave.piscitello@icann.org Tue Oct 4 14:34:36 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 A6B8821F8E27 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.341 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S1VQrS5pjtlT for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:34:35 -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 3B92421F8DAB for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:34:35 -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; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:37:41 -0700 From: Dave Piscitello To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:37:30 -0700 Thread-Topic: Internationalized Registration Data Thread-Index: AcyC3deDm94HFewORdmVcOi/srDdjw== Message-ID: <81BBE52B-4AD0-480D-80CA-E4CDDF3190F4@icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Apple-Mail-22-154634368" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] Internationalized Registration Data 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, 04 Oct 2011 21:34:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail-22-154634368 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-21-154634339 --Apple-Mail-21-154634339 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As providing support for internationalized registration data is one of = the design objectives for WEIRDS, you may find it useful to read - and = comment - on the following: Draft Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working = Group http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-03oct11-en.htm ICANN is seeking public comments on the draft Final Report [PDF, 437 KB] = of the joint SSAC-GNSO Working Group on Internationalized Registration = Data (IRD-WG). This draft Final Report studies the feasibility and = suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the = internationalization of registration data and finds that it is feasible = to introduce submission and display specifications to deal with = Internationalized Domain Name Registration Data and recommends a series = of next steps that could be undertaken to address further the technical = and policy issues identified in this report.= --Apple-Mail-21-154634339 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
As providing support for internationalized registration data is one of the design objectives for WEIRDS, you may find it useful to read - and comment - on the following:

Draft Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-03oct11-en.htm


ICANN is seeking public comments on the draft Final Report [PDF, 437 KB] of the joint SSAC-GNSO Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD-WG). This draft Final Report studies the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data and finds that it is feasible to introduce submission and display specifications to deal with Internationalized Domain Name Registration Data and recommends a series of next steps that could be undertaken to address further the technical and policy issues identified in this report.
--Apple-Mail-21-154634339-- --Apple-Mail-22-154634368 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name="PGP.sig" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Disposition: inline; filename="PGP.sig" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOi3yjAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNXUwIALEjYovdD+6rVhaKeAASCtkg c4y/H2vCYpP/sRDjKX5BizHPcYqpS/4UiuwpHnie70OLsC/PcUMH4LHt44nGwq/d Vqgwhd0zGRbyy7ZkKyR/TMa+83bzMvjvSfU4kXzD+OIBHDda+zTZHF6HccRv67Qr +2Ins+TY6PscOJwsjtKgphLC8Dat/bqToglNzi7g+t+6eihtRe+uSIAe/u4ZfT2S iHGitY7Fwb5MmlfDtFrM5eyHHKAxJsdBIynj6ziRwG6+r1ySwIKUD7dKwLWbrPV6 Qs9uog0V6SxuCaBZMgnUfdy269jpC/1qjcMbRaB2p0VEdTzcWkgFKngk4Sv61Ho= =2nTr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-22-154634368-- From peter@denic.de Tue Oct 4 23:12:41 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 089FC21F8562 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:12:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h6FZEASVyos5 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:12:40 -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 2AF8121F851A for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RBKlZ-0004n8-Uq; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:15:41 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RBKlZ-0002p4-R2; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:15:41 +0200 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:15:41 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:12:41 -0000 On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:40:35PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Here is the proposed agenda for the BOF: > 4. Questions for discussion (at least 30 mins): > a. Is this a problem to be solved? > b. Is the problem statement in the proposed charter clear > enough? > c. Do we think we can solve the problem? > d. Are there people willing to work on the problem? there will hopefully be moe time than 30 minutes. > Description of Working Group: > IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary > reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact > that it has its own control part, and that it requires > implementers to understand the details of the transport it is > using. I think this analysis needs more space on the prospective charter. That is, I'm not convinced that the "complexity" of the protocol is really the issue unless we're willing to cut down on the requirements side. Any flexible approach will ultimately have to show some complexity to address and, where necessary, combine solutions for the various requirements across the various constituency. It may be that the transport or session layer approaches chosen by IRIS were too ambitious or overtaken by events, but just because the approach du jour is to substitute API design for protocol design doesn't mean we'll see a betrter result in terms of deployment. > In response to these facts, some registries have deployed > experimental services that provide the registration information > services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach > to data delivery over the web. Three such efforts have been > undertaken, and more may be anticipated in response to the > increased deployment of IDNA. It is interesting to observe that most of the perceived complexity of the protocol arises from ist use in the domain name business whereas the demonstrated solution originate from within the RIR community mostly. > 1. Complete support for internationalization of queries and > responses, including a standard representation for IDNs and > non-ASCII text in queries and responses, and ways to indicate > language or character set preferences for responses. The Working > Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or > both) is an appropriate selector. Whois is one of those protocols where protocol elements may be exposed to the end user, therefore: when talking about "language" here, would that apply to user friendly translated record or field names like "address" or what else? Also, localization might be an important additional issue. > One possible outcome of the requirements development stage will be > that the WG concludes that using one protocol for name and number > registries is an error, in which case two different but probably > basically similar protocols will be developed. I'd suggest that that decision be postponed until after the requirements work, i.e., there might be only energy/consensus/support to proceed with one of the two. > Milestones > > [TBD] Drafts outlining existing deployments to IESG for > publication as Informational RFCs. If these just document the current REST implementations in separate documents, what's the purpose of making the drafts WG documents? > [TBD] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as > Informational RFC. > > [TBD] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on > the standards track. I'd like to see the charter allow for changes to IRIS instead of only the development of a new protocol (well, API for that matter). -Peter From sm@resistor.net Wed Oct 5 02:42:23 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 CF6F021F89BA for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:42:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4s4+GbsWxEn1 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:42:22 -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 30B1E21F8564 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p959jKUw028196 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1317807925; bh=LdozjbwpPHyTquLwgd5t6YUXWVnP5IKWVoVwFXNGf0I=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=QqvWhct02k8NadpCHW+Dk3mr8JggKZojgV6qY7getjPJ9k0Uz0nXU5po5NzkO/jti hXZBc0j1P3lIGXzSM/ZMDoSwPu/E7jpx1XCjIABFV81UAwsGDA3g5ctQSWXhAUpuvG I2DOkmgRtOc02sd2vIeSUElaCXrmafwgBJbRSu0s= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1317807925; bh=LdozjbwpPHyTquLwgd5t6YUXWVnP5IKWVoVwFXNGf0I=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=lE18YALuYqpQeB+y0ejuVDXf8bTlubne/XLPQ+ReNgs4362mjozetzJ7thklI8Sca NvQmuuC9tC7sHQT5eTdQ+DcUrWU2w91bKZAhxNzMT5wXeKaj/AWmjBu2Bw+j17qAaC u9fGK/JS2/uzIKXKlbqd4Ix/C3xQXFHQuOVfd3IQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:16:02 -0700 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:42:23 -0000 At 23:15 04-10-2011, Peter Koch wrote: >It may be that the transport or session layer approaches chosen by IRIS >were too ambitious or overtaken by events, but just because the >approach du jour is to substitute API design for protocol design >doesn't mean we'll see a betrter result in terms of deployment. Yes. The current fad is the HTTP of Things. One of the requirements discussed in another group was to design a protocol that could be implemented by "amateurs". :-) >It is interesting to observe that most of the perceived complexity of the >protocol arises from ist use in the domain name business whereas the >demonstrated solution originate from within the RIR community mostly. And that can end up as an IRIS-bis. >I'd suggest that that decision be postponed until after the requirements >work, i.e., there might be only energy/consensus/support to proceed with >one of the two. Agreed. The previous requirements look good on paper. I suggest looking into what solutions are out there and compare them with the previous requirements. Regards, -sm From shopik@inblock.ru Wed Oct 5 02:57:26 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 CE87C21F8507 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.096 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HELO_MISMATCH_RU=3.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aafr7FIu3PpZ for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.inblock.ru (ns.km31619.keymachine.de [62.141.52.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2DE21F86F6 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inblock.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8B81150004; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:00:32 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=inblock.ru; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :references:subject:subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:from :date:date:message-id:received:received; s=keyweb; t=1317808832; bh=VzlitqZUAc9SY4MnBgBVKfU4hpns8gi2SGKybG18+Ok=; b=pk4bFVvTyA0n bo1U0KPeUybKxLo2bId7JZJleErfbkm5I0iTNhVQpqM1JXlCkgF1I6R1kH03zYbM P6QWexz3/y0xL1ljS+B0C5sIBY5vAr8LkzMkYRX+wQ7pfXJjqaKeFh5mC1BqcJwL e4CXTIGuHD8LfoxR4PdJUNnR0pDJLfw= Received: from mail.inblock.ru ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (km31619.keymachine.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 7vgrp2AiwKRx; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:00:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.20.69] (83-69-202-99.in-addr.mastertelecom.ru [83.69.202.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: shopik@inblock.ru) by mail.inblock.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FF1129408B; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:00:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E8C2ABF.2010409@inblock.ru> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:00:31 +0400 From: Nikolay Shopik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM , weirds@ietf.org References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:57:26 -0000 On 05/10/11 12:16, SM wrote: >> It is interesting to observe that most of the perceived complexity of the >> protocol arises from ist use in the domain name business whereas the >> demonstrated solution originate from within the RIR community mostly. > > And that can end up as an IRIS-bis. I'm understood that correctly, that most work currently only apply to RIRs? And stuff for ccTLDs, will separately appear later under this WG? From sm@resistor.net Wed Oct 5 03:36:56 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 A6F6521F8726 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RGGxaL8ZKH10 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:36:54 -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 BF40521F8C34 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p95AdoZo003311; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:39:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1317811198; bh=TNHXFaK/fncSD+W9n9bcL5gjTRgz3XirSRwgnwVHrJ4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Q9w03GLANYn9QjVyu3S6HsBaHmXtYiD2KuvlerBjdtpFIi9XdsjduMo71JfQoX1JH 4CwodsYIJgS0khUiAA0gYhwOs7OEU3aGXqDMvTZTY/zuYIhGVVXqrXtaselXbc8nnc 6dFd/6Xdoce+m+CeUf0iKygWfs42qnEtlkjWlgEA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1317811198; bh=TNHXFaK/fncSD+W9n9bcL5gjTRgz3XirSRwgnwVHrJ4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=nI6hcDg8zMRqBT17FKucGPnSSOPSXrF/M1o+DwFnw4l2zW3GYVg6hrM21GS8obX2Y Nv28/yhyAKwSREVyW8+7UY6QSlKNsp8qR9/diReJZheN3NgB5tIAOazhI7IegT9PIf ykLKvj0BnW7J8444GSGCo9tlS6H6zo3t0Dbvp6SI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005030623.0a20d118@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:37:18 -0700 To: Nikolay Shopik From: SM In-Reply-To: <4E8C2ABF.2010409@inblock.ru> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <4E8C2ABF.2010409@inblock.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:36:56 -0000 Hi Nikolay, At 03:00 05-10-2011, Nikolay Shopik wrote: >I'm understood that correctly, that most work currently only apply >to RIRs? And stuff for ccTLDs, will separately appear later under this WG? Wierds is not a working group. The BoF which has been requested is an attempt to form a working group. There have been some individual drafts that have been discussed on this mailing list. That work is from individuals who work for RIRs or ICANN. People from ccTLDs have not submitted any draft. The proposed charter for a proposed working group covers both RIRs and ccTLDs. If a design is picked once there is a working group, it would also be recommended for ccTLDs. That does not mean that ccTLDs must follow that design. If you have some interest in the work, it is up to you to read the proposed charter and see whether you agree about what work will be done and how it will be done. Regards, -sm From dave.piscitello@icann.org Wed Oct 5 04:22:59 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 7A25F21F8C3E for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:22:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NikqZLBGJBwk for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:22:58 -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 A49CE21F8569 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:22:58 -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; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:26:05 -0700 From: Dave Piscitello To: Peter Koch Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:26:00 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: WEIRDS] Thread-Index: AcyDUZJiwe5rqG9QRTSyf0taO0deNQ== Message-ID: References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 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] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:22:59 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:15 AM, Peter Koch wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:40:35PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >=20 >> Description of Working Group: >=20 >> IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary >> reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact >> that it has its own control part, and that it requires >> implementers to understand the details of the transport it is >> using. >=20 > I think this analysis needs more space on the prospective charter. > That is, I'm not convinced that the "complexity" of the protocol > is really the issue unless we're willing to cut down on the > requirements side. =20 I agree, but I don't think we need a detailed negative analysis of IRIS. Ra= ther, I think that the explanation that Andy Newton has used on several occ= asions is extremely helpful. You can glean the reasons from our ;login arti= cle. Using a REST framework leverages existing client, server infrastructur= e, and (importantly) developer knowledge base much more so than IRIS. Busin= ess segments that claim to have very small revenue margins and contractual = obligations to provide a non-revenue generating service may be just as reti= cent to implement something that is "entirely new" as they would something = complex. We're trying to demonstrate that RESTful directory services are ne= ither of these and thus, several benefits emerge from what is seemingly a m= odest investment: structured data, internationalization, security framework= (even if this proves to be only confidentiality and server authentication,= it costs little over current web-based Whois).=20 >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOjD7NAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNXEIH/34IFcAsoBK1LM8TR/6tru5n EzQUFfJL22+kRQcAaOLwvCoiy7E3pC/PfAdB4dVpA7rTDDXwk0Ooze2o3nXBkcAu Q3fKivG4qVLZ15CUGzY58T0LELrwb5rrRExKYwbc1XLPHGDflLIKqXr8IXxrMcgP 5B9vwpNbxiuP2K3dTi7jjaOMTBRuNuJiSqAAru7fVfv5do0A92N55PwvpWuEqSIQ twqMQlzitT8Cfz9a6RJUBP+eugVW9YMpBrhrIj45XqqrNYK8WnoxEdrKrr29yKAN FgUtQH9trzC44sm/wvgg4ZXXQm6OCXmbXHVzLL2NzMZnw/doLNSfvhE+FLi80ik=3D =3DeuHA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From avri@acm.org Wed Oct 5 04:47:55 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 31C7E21F8CCF for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:47:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UaSzhxoQEbm3 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9653A21F8CC9 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RBQ04-0001av-NU for weirds@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:51:01 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 07:50:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:47:55 -0000 On 5 Oct 2011, at 04:16, SM wrote: >=20 > The previous requirements look good on paper. I suggest looking into = what solutions are out there and compare them with the previous = requirements. Wouldn't the point be to collect all of the requirements, including the = ones that IRIS was based on, and then look toward solution, including = perhaps IRIS-bis based on the collected and WG consensus view of the = requirements? BTW, I do not see that the draft charter as currently written necessary = excludes IRIS, it just doesn't presuppose it. avri= From vesely@tana.it Wed Oct 5 04:58:52 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 1006521F8C85 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Ov8XO4X-3Tf for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A5B21F8C80 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:58:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1317816116; bh=+Ttw9ffPrvXXvgYreXyFFTR26JLS7SD0ls5FfzX9TQY=; l=1281; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Zkvg8GOpQRcyACX0qU8cIpwr6YiglS1I8SNUsVyMehKglhGArXX5O7sLSmg6a5ju1 hMCRRNPC6sxBH4DR274XJMiphpxl2XGhzTF7PoyDb0Wswn0lPNKrFXixCdGd48EqaP cmXcofAktSzV4L8P+OYLUcd7fP8rPk3M91OhIsZA= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:01:56 +0200 id 00000000005DC042.000000004E8C4734.0000274C Message-ID: <4E8C4733.1080003@tana.it> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:01:55 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <81BBE52B-4AD0-480D-80CA-E4CDDF3190F4@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <81BBE52B-4AD0-480D-80CA-E4CDDF3190F4@icann.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ird-draft-final-report@icann.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalized Registration Data 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, 05 Oct 2011 11:58:52 -0000 On 04/Oct/11 23:37, Dave Piscitello wrote: > As providing support for internationalized registration data is one of > the design objectives for WEIRDS, you may find it useful to read - and > comment - on the following: > > Draft Final Report of the IRD-WG > The four models illustrated at the end are interesting. However, the concept of a "must be present" representation is ill-defined. Since registration data ought to have legal standing, the "must" should be for the local representation. (Note that multilingual communities may support multiple scripts.) I'd suggest a "may be present" approach, permitting ASCII to the extent allowed by local regulations and policies, and providing transliteration/translation of specific terms (e.g. as parenthesized comments, the other way than figure 1) to the extent that registrant and registrar are willing to supply and check, respectively. The existence of a comprehensible contact is a clear indication that it may make sense to try and get hold of the person. For email addresses in particular, an RFC 2142 role name apparently implies accepting English. Otherwise, contacts would need to be cluttered with Accept-Language tags. From andy@hxr.us Wed Oct 5 05:24:17 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 BAD6B21F8CCF for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:24:17 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtAn5ABveByQ for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C204C21F8C9A for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnk3 with SMTP id k3so885087ggn.31 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.202.10 with SMTP id z10mr2170524ybf.0.1317817643439; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (ip72-196-196-5.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.196.196.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s19sm4332578anm.20.2011.10.05.05.27.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:26:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> To: Avri Doria X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:24:17 -0000 On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Wouldn't the point be to collect all of the requirements, including = the ones that IRIS was based on, and then look toward solution, = including perhaps IRIS-bis based on the collected and WG consensus view = of the requirements? >=20 > BTW, I do not see that the draft charter as currently written = necessary excludes IRIS, it just doesn't presuppose it. What is the point of having IRIS-bis? To provide backwards compatibility = with all the current IRIS deployments? The only part of IRIS that has seen any real deployment is DCHK over = UDP, adopted by two ccTLDs. And that is work I don't think we should = attempt to replicate. -andy= From andy@hxr.us Wed Oct 5 05:27:19 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 68AC021F8ACA for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:27:19 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 493s4yfgB86N for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA56121F8AC9 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywm3 with SMTP id 3so1837609ywm.31 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.13.9 with SMTP id 9mr2135205ybm.251.1317817823993; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (ip72-196-196-5.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.196.196.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m10sm4409074ang.12.2011.10.05.05.30.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:30:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:27:19 -0000 On Oct 5, 2011, at 4:16 AM, SM wrote: > Yes. The current fad is the HTTP of Things. One of the requirements = discussed in another group was to design a protocol that could be = implemented by "amateurs". :-) Had the security czars not blocked the other TCP ports at the corporate = firewalls, we might live on a different Internet. :) -andy= From avri@acm.org Wed Oct 5 06:05:44 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 EAD6121F8C9D for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:05:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MgUUYr3HbnqG for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690B121F8C19 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RBRDP-000FOl-UA for weirds@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:08:52 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:08:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9E4716D6-28B6-42E7-880B-F0A71F257AB4@acm.org> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:05:45 -0000 Hi Andy, I just wasn't making any presupposition until we aggregated the = requirements from all the relevant sources. There are people that seem = to think well of what IRIS does, and I guess some who actually use it. = So, to me, it made sense to include it among the things we looked at = once we knew what the requirements were. I was not suggesting that we = make explicit mention of checking it, only that the charter as currently = written did not seem to preclude looking at it as one among possibly = several alternates. avri On 5 Oct 2011, at 08:26, Andy Newton wrote: >=20 > On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >=20 >> Wouldn't the point be to collect all of the requirements, including = the ones that IRIS was based on, and then look toward solution, = including perhaps IRIS-bis based on the collected and WG consensus view = of the requirements? >>=20 >> BTW, I do not see that the draft charter as currently written = necessary excludes IRIS, it just doesn't presuppose it. >=20 > What is the point of having IRIS-bis? To provide backwards = compatibility with all the current IRIS deployments? >=20 > The only part of IRIS that has seen any real deployment is DCHK over = UDP, adopted by two ccTLDs. And that is work I don't think we should = attempt to replicate. >=20 > -andy From andy@arin.net Wed Oct 5 06:16:56 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 BBBA321F84B4 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:16:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ZjCLO8-t+8r for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6103B21F8446 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id C735316514B; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93AE165142; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:19:52 -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; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:19:34 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.210]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:19:45 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Avri Doria Thread-Topic: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: WEIRDS] Thread-Index: AQHMg1UQiqZE5yCZv0O/e4cIPVzIO5Vt8EwAgAAL8oCAAAMKAA== Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:19:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1F25F423-B7FD-4680-A36F-6134C6221C8D@arin.net> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> <9E4716D6-28B6-42E7-880B-F0A71F257AB4@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <9E4716D6-28B6-42E7-880B-F0A71F257AB4@acm.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.32.94] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0C927EBCDA066A41B7B03598E456E49D@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:16:56 -0000 On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi Andy, >=20 > I just wasn't making any presupposition until we aggregated the requireme= nts from all the relevant sources. There are people that seem to think wel= l of what IRIS does, and I guess some who actually use it. So, to me, it m= ade sense to include it among the things we looked at once we knew what the= requirements were. I was not suggesting that we make explicit mention of = checking it, only that the charter as currently written did not seem to pre= clude looking at it as one among possibly several alternates. >=20 > avri Avri, Understood. Sorry for the snark. I'll go properly caffeinate now to prevent= further outbursts. :) -andy= From sm@resistor.net Wed Oct 5 09:36:41 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 7AAFA1F0C52 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KmS3XWnlrXTH for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:36:40 -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 4DE661F0C48 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p95GdgoX029601 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1317832787; bh=L1eJlQGvu7eyaq+0xRXaJDlNO8e5xn4LC2LqIV78+fs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=0BlK2ISrAAO7lVThw58pIrrGxAdwzXYGDfLuDsRUps9ap/1XzliM0VrhXgpqBwVvg LMdZBq8yZ8JeEF3yi+7QdshuSDGHmXzUw99FE9diNZ8Iwyq+pP8fBPyY9ilmvtITTZ KoXREaN85cHigx1sFlrjKEAOrKMy/YUZpqzjAfJo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1317832787; bh=L1eJlQGvu7eyaq+0xRXaJDlNO8e5xn4LC2LqIV78+fs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=m+ytVlQK3H0A2nTngrgD7sUJy6r3Zcp63kSFuX7jfymIoXpakZRHQKz+SsLUA3FbV OXU5IxcAkh5kwXftaKSJ8SQ6y1xWONbRJuXY+phwouAX/Aei2Lcu9GJVJZ4eozVJz0 zJGNaOxDa1PPQ8Dt92eZDvF3JZbNfEIUw6m46aPE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005074445.0ad07ff8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:32:59 -0700 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:36:41 -0000 At 04:50 05-10-2011, Avri Doria wrote: >Wouldn't the point be to collect all of the requirements, including >the ones that IRIS was based on, and then look toward solution, >including perhaps IRIS-bis based on the collected and WG consensus >view of the requirements? The discussion up to now has been about a RESTful solution as that is the only alternative that has been submitted as drafts. Some people who have been looking for a solution do not favor a particular alternative as their problem is data availability. I don't think that collecting requirements will help in addressing such a problem. At 05:30 05-10-2011, Andy Newton wrote: >Had the security czars not blocked the other TCP ports at the >corporate firewalls, we might live on a different Internet. :) See draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00 :-) Regards, -sm From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Oct 5 09:56:16 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 DA75A21F8C6C for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YUVFY-eJAuyq for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419E721F8C5D for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8D601ECB41F for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:59:22 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20111005165921.GJ63242@shinkuro.com> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:56:17 -0000 On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:15:41AM +0200, Peter Koch wrote: > > 4. Questions for discussion (at least 30 mins): > there will hopefully be moe time than 30 minutes. I asked for a 2 hour slot, but we could be reduced to 1, in which case we'd have to move very fast through all the background and so on before getting to the open mic, in order to get a lot more than 30 mins. > I think this analysis needs more space on the prospective charter. > That is, I'm not convinced that the "complexity" of the protocol > is really the issue unless we're willing to cut down on the > requirements side. That could be. It is the reason people state most often, however, for why IRIS didn't get rolled out. Do you have text to suggest? > It is interesting to observe that most of the perceived complexity of the > protocol arises from ist use in the domain name business whereas the > demonstrated solution originate from within the RIR community mostly. Right. That's why I'm susceptible to the argument (I think John Klensin made it in the APPSAWG) that part of the problem here is trying to "replace WHOIS" where WHOIS is the lookup protocol used for two completely different registry types. Maybe that's the deep source of the problem. > Whois is one of those protocols where protocol elements may be > exposed to the end user, therefore: when talking about "language" > here, would that apply to user friendly translated record or field > names like "address" or what else? Also, localization might be an > important additional issue. Excellent point. Text? > > One possible outcome of the requirements development stage will be > > that the WG concludes that using one protocol for name and number > > registries is an error, in which case two different but probably > > basically similar protocols will be developed. > > I'd suggest that that decision be postponed until after the requirements > work, i.e., there might be only energy/consensus/support to proceed with > one of the two. Sure. > > Milestones > > > > [TBD] Drafts outlining existing deployments to IESG for > > publication as Informational RFCs. > > If these just document the current REST implementations in separate > documents, what's the purpose of making the drafts WG documents? I guess we don't need to. The review might be a good idea, however. > I'd like to see the charter allow for changes to IRIS instead of only the > development of a new protocol (well, API for that matter). Why? We have seen absolutely no interest expressed in futher IRIS work, and if we have to have the fight about whether to start with IRIS or build some sort of web service, I think we will expend all our energy before we get to specifying interoperable things. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Oct 7 07:17:16 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 6DFFA21F8505 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrdGkpnFN4Zx for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E119D21F8AF1 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8786B1ECB41C for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:20:32 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] BOF in Taipei 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, 07 Oct 2011 14:17:16 -0000 Dear colleagues, I haven't received any mail from anyone on this topic, but I see from http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ that our BOF request was approved for Taipei. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Oct 7 08:06:30 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 2EB5F21F8BFE for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.393 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.206, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQ8cb-eTCzTB for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:06:29 -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 4EB0A21F8BF8 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:06:29 -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, 7 Oct 2011 08:09:42 -0700 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andrew Sullivan Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:09:41 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] BOF in Taipei Thread-Index: AcyFAyPbu5oQ7FjKQxCNmvcZYhw+iQ== Message-ID: <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> References: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 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] BOF in Taipei 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, 07 Oct 2011 15:06:30 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for this Andrew. I won't be in Taipei. If someone pops up skype I could be persuaded to part= icipate remotely :-) On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, >=20 > I haven't received any mail from anyone on this topic, but I see from > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ that our BOF request was approved > for Taipei. =20 >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOjxY1AAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNgpkH/1WUyhY3Jdp1ytE2Z7WvBbNT mj2kEnM+HZsoi1u5IOFAp128S3EdC2G8MEw4NlYFWIUEEd9myoIFiTZYMK9prIEX 4/nMij9gu9bM8NmINYjz3ZNQZfg/9XYgQmQXnIdmUOs9i6njlj/DiXBnv6URq2TQ e39/0VyLRGGvNRzabOf3rVlCoqazyzocfxr/yxF/+JYnIMXuRizz6s87nvEkRUdx Rl7FunfwFiCgQlevQNDy9N1bYL5YjhH2eFjyUwuXkoEU8vH8iiYxOvGI5Fzccp0Y Rv9c4twoOaME3a1slgLOxcZtOiNJpfmqxRW96KHhFf2RjL2rNQuh7QCK7NLNPCU=3D =3D0eST -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Oct 7 11:21:08 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 0444621F8B53 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eyMvJU373iqo for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCE321F8B42 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:24:20 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:24:19 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] BOF in Taipei Thread-Index: AcyFAyPbu5oQ7FjKQxCNmvcZYhw+iQAGyJtQ Message-ID: References: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> 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] BOF in Taipei 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, 07 Oct 2011 18:21:08 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Dave Piscitello > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 8:10 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] BOF in Taipei >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > Thanks for this Andrew. >=20 > I won't be in Taipei. If someone pops up skype I could be persuaded to > participate remotely :-) If IETF doesn't provide for that in the BoF, I can probably set something u= p. From nantoniello@gmail.com Fri Oct 7 12:13:23 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 30C5D21F8511 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Q5mOew6dhR7 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAF521F86F6 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so5485319iab.31 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=LxThJ9LsWI9gJVItRN4l39lwCOUWpxJImGC91SEqfxo=; b=l3Lep3mCNclBPILkCmc31jpExa4HQMHBTSWYBXyU25b1Ubc7Zg+BdO4PpRg/w5Up6t ASRamr1HqVNTDOlwzgSxE+uh/g1kH1tNRm4iV/I2FVFyb5anjJDM986wMxx9HI0KovMq Kdp3qnBZEoET9Y7WWAAOmVBml+GMfCtAWmwsY= Received: by 10.231.63.11 with SMTP id z11mr3860138ibh.23.1318014993109; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.34.66 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Nicolas Antoniello Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:16:13 -0200 Message-ID: To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd483fc7912e304aeba47d8 Subject: [weirds] About the Autonomous Systems query format (sec 2.2. of draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-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, 07 Oct 2011 19:13:23 -0000 --000e0cd483fc7912e304aeba47d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear all, While reading the "Autonomous Systems" section of the draft (sec 2.2.) I wonder if it would be a good idea to include the acceptable format of a query of 32bits ASN. As normally there are 2 "most used" formats for this, I believe that it would be good to define explicitly in the draft text if it is going to be acceptable either of them or both (I would suggest only "asplain" representation). One possible text addition to section 2.2. could be: --- For 32 bits ASN numbers, it will be used "asplain" representation as defined in RFC 5396. For example, to find information on autonomous system number 65551, the following path would be used: /autnum/65551 Rather than: /autnum/1.15 --- What do you think? Regards, Nicolas --000e0cd483fc7912e304aeba47d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all,

While reading the "Autonomous Systems" section o= f the draft (sec 2.2.) I wonder if it would be a good idea to include the a= cceptable format of a query of 32bits ASN.
As normally there are 2 "= ;most used" formats for this, I believe that it would be good to defin= e explicitly in the draft text if it is going to be acceptable either of th= em or both (I would suggest only "asplain" representation).

One possible text addition to section 2.2. could be:

---
For = 32 bits ASN numbers, it will be used "asplain" representation as = defined in RFC 5396.

For example, to find information on autonomous = system number 65551,
=A0 the following path would be used:

=A0 =A0 /autnum/65551

R= ather than:

=A0 =A0 /autnum/1.15
---

What do you think?
Regards,
Nicolas
=A0
--000e0cd483fc7912e304aeba47d8-- From leo.vegoda@icann.org Fri Oct 7 12:26:49 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 7966621F8C2D for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eUEvWU6m4YVV for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:26:49 -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 1423C21F8BE8 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:26:49 -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; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:30:02 -0700 From: Leo Vegoda To: Nicolas Antoniello , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:29:27 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] About the Autonomous Systems query format (sec 2.2. of draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00) Thread-Index: AcyFJ2tsRElb8p0PTvq/S2J8XxWf7A== Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F3418377FFE25A0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] About the Autonomous Systems query format (sec 2.2. of draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-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, 07 Oct 2011 19:26:49 -0000 Hi, You wrote: > For 32 bits ASN numbers, it will be used "asplain" representation as=20 > defined in RFC 5396. > > For example, to find information on autonomous system number 65551, >=A0 the following path would be used: > >=A0 =A0 /autnum/65551 >=20 > Rather than: >=20 > =A0 =A0 /autnum/1.15 > --- >=20 > What do you think? Given that RFC 5396 is a Proposed Standard, that seems to be the right thin= g to do. Regards, Leo From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Oct 7 12:29:53 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 5BF5D21F8C3E for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:29:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w+JZ0HuFJxly for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEDC121F8ADE for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B1C41ECB41C; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:33:10 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Dave Piscitello Message-ID: <20111007193309.GQ73072@shinkuro.com> References: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] BOF in Taipei 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, 07 Oct 2011 19:29:53 -0000 On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:09:41AM -0700, Dave Piscitello wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for this Andrew. > > I won't be in Taipei. If someone pops up skype I could be persuaded to participate remotely :-) > Hrm. I did _not_ ask for WebEx in the meeting, partly because I have found the BOFs I've been to recently have been so frenetic anyway that it seemed to me managing the WebEx line too would be very hard. I can ask for a WebEx connection if desired, but I got the impression that there's some resistance. There's also the meetecho support that has been available in some meeting rooms. The other problem, though, is that we already have a lot of conflicts, and so getting a room with all the support could be hard. Maybe just opening a skype call is the right answer. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From aservin@lacnic.net Fri Oct 7 12:32:59 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 C280621F8B53 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:32:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.95 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-6.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Awzgbn+JCZIf for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:32:42 -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 AA40921F8B0C for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 59.10.61.190.host.ifxnetworks.com (59.10.61.190.host.ifxnetworks.com [190.61.10.59]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1A13084BB; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:35:48 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F3418377FFE25A0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:35:45 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <23B2690C-724E-423C-A33F-751B3DA762B5@lacnic.net> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F3418377FFE25A0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> To: Leo Vegoda X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) 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] About the Autonomous Systems query format (sec 2.2. of draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-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, 07 Oct 2011 19:32:59 -0000 Agree in using asplain. We will change in the next revision. thanks, -as On 7 Oct 2011, at 16:29, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Hi, >=20 > You wrote: >=20 >> For 32 bits ASN numbers, it will be used "asplain" representation as=20= >> defined in RFC 5396. >>=20 >> For example, to find information on autonomous system number 65551, >> the following path would be used: >>=20 >> /autnum/65551 >>=20 >> Rather than: >>=20 >> /autnum/1.15 >> --- >>=20 >> What do you think? >=20 > Given that RFC 5396 is a Proposed Standard, that seems to be the right = thing to do. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Leo > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From avri@acm.org Fri Oct 7 14:04:51 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 CC21621F8C10 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n+cJr-ow34kp for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A73921F8BF3 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RCHeH-000Kb5-Ew for weirds@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:08:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: <20111007193309.GQ73072@shinkuro.com> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:08:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73C6F834-2EDC-42C7-9CB3-305C0DFFECBF@acm.org> References: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> <20111007193309.GQ73072@shinkuro.com> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Subject: Re: [weirds] BOF in Taipei 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, 07 Oct 2011 21:04:51 -0000 Hi, I was also hoping to particpate remotely as I do not expect to be able = to get to Taipei. avri On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:09:41AM -0700, Dave Piscitello wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >>=20 >> Thanks for this Andrew. >>=20 >> I won't be in Taipei. If someone pops up skype I could be persuaded = to participate remotely :-) >>=20 >=20 > Hrm. I did _not_ ask for WebEx in the meeting, partly because I have > found the BOFs I've been to recently have been so frenetic anyway that > it seemed to me managing the WebEx line too would be very hard. I can > ask for a WebEx connection if desired, but I got the impression that > there's some resistance. There's also the meetecho support that has > been available in some meeting rooms. >=20 > The other problem, though, is that we already have a lot of conflicts, > and so getting a room with all the support could be hard. Maybe just > opening a skype call is the right answer. >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Oct 7 14:11:31 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 1F7B921F8C48 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QlKGZxnXpyNf for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954B421F8C28 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A89AE1ECB41C for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 21:14:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:14:47 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20111007211447.GT73072@shinkuro.com> References: <20111007142032.GB73072@shinkuro.com> <7038BA32-478D-4D63-9C39-76E9362E39FC@icann.org> <20111007193309.GQ73072@shinkuro.com> <73C6F834-2EDC-42C7-9CB3-305C0DFFECBF@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <73C6F834-2EDC-42C7-9CB3-305C0DFFECBF@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] BOF in Taipei 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, 07 Oct 2011 21:11:31 -0000 On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 05:08:04PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I was also hoping to particpate remotely as I do not expect to be able to get to Taipei. > I can look into this, but my understanding is that BOFs don't get the same support as regular WG meetings. So I can't promise anything. I'll see what I can do. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 10 08:10:29 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 2FDC421F8560 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5zUjWzpO5ka for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:10:28 -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 9209921F851A for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RDHUl-0002DO-9f; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:10:23 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RDHUl-0006yF-6A; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:10:23 +0200 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:10:23 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: "weirds@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20111010151023.GF28724@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:10:29 -0000 On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:26:00AM -0700, Dave Piscitello wrote: > > I think this analysis needs more space on the prospective charter. > > That is, I'm not convinced that the "complexity" of the protocol > > is really the issue unless we're willing to cut down on the > > requirements side. > > I agree, but I don't think we need a detailed negative analysis of IRIS. agree, for given values of 'detailed'. > Using a REST framework leverages existing client, server infrastructure, > and (importantly) developer knowledge base much more so than IRIS. I'm not defending IRIS in any way, just i fear were going to be caught in the same trap as IRIS sooner or later. And for the "developer knowledge base" I am not sure where to find myself on the scale between laughter and mourning. Also i am not opposed to REST in general, just i'm not subscribing to that religion. In particular, it is in no way helping with the (lack of) a data model, where IRIS or other efforts have set the grounds. The RIPE database, for example, has been working very well without REST over the last 20-ish years - due to a sensible data model. > it costs little over current web-based Whois). Web based whois (and the service, opposed to the protocol, is what this is all about) is unlikely to disappear no matter what protocol or API this group will come up with, if only for whatever access control has to be implemented. Who is the immediate target audience for the specification/output this group is considering to deliver? -Peter From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 10 08:55:24 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 35FEC21F84DC for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:55:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fKC6o-2VjiGR for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:55:23 -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 AEDC121F84D8 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RDICH-0002NC-1q; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:55:21 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RDICG-0007cw-Uf; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:55:20 +0200 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:55:20 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20111010155520.GH28724@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:55:24 -0000 On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:26:06AM -0400, Andy Newton wrote: > What is the point of having IRIS-bis? To provide backwards compatibility with all the current IRIS deployments? in a way, yes. There are reasons for non-deployment and maybe those should be addressed. If the group consensus is that IRIS' major fault is the lack of port 80, then changing the 'transport' to REST I'm sure will do the job (withthe data model still to be inherited from IRIS, maybe). If the counter incentives are on the economics or political side then I'm afraid a renewed IETF effort is at the risk of having similar success. -Peter From drc@virtualized.org Mon Oct 10 09:22:17 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 0E09321F8C48 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:22:17 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lRIGAvs30Xpw for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A91621F8C46 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [173.245.57.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC96E1704E; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <20111010155520.GH28724@x27.adm.denic.de> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:22:14 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20111003164034.GF53886@shinkuro.com> <20111005061541.GY28724@x27.adm.denic.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111005003120.085ab480@resistor.net> <10506DAE-2621-4B57-9648-E9683225F8A3@acm.org> <0F95F529-E592-475D-8DD5-95FA54B8A666@hxr.us> <20111010155520.GH28724@x27.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Submission for BOF request [ajs@anvilwalrusden.com: BOF request IETF 82: 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: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:22:17 -0000 On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Peter Koch wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:26:06AM -0400, Andy Newton wrote: >> What is the point of having IRIS-bis? To provide backwards = compatibility with all the current IRIS deployments? >=20 > in a way, yes. There are reasons for non-deployment and maybe > those should be addressed. If the group consensus is that IRIS' major > fault is the lack of port 80, then changing the 'transport' to REST > I'm sure will do the job (withthe data model still to be inherited > from IRIS, maybe). If the counter incentives are on the economics > or political side then I'm afraid a renewed IETF effort is at the > risk of having similar success. + While undoubtedly fun for some, I fear arguing about transport flavor of = the day will leave us precisely the same place we've been with Whois++, = RWhois, IRIS, and the myriad of different flavors of Whois (either port = 43 or 80). The problem in this space isn't REST vs IRIS vs DNS vs Whois vs. = anything else. It's the fact that there is and never has been an agreed = upon "registration data" data model nor has there been the political = will or economic incentive to compromise on (much less implement) a = standardized "registration data" schema. Once you have a consistent way of representing the data that people can = agree upon, packaging it into packets or streams with different headers = is a trivial detail. Without that consistent data model and schema, = you'll end up exactly where we are now, just with access provided to = random blobs of possibly UTF-8 (or maybe NETASCII or maybe locally = encoded) and at best arbitrarily tagged data via REST instead of a = stream over port 43. Regards, -drc From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Oct 14 12:58:21 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 22FE921F8C6B for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.082 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PE7vCKRpiBSM for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1B321F8C68 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:58:20 -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 306761ECB41C for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:58:18 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20111014195818.GW7593@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] BOF slot on draft agenda 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, 14 Oct 2011 19:58:21 -0000 Dear colleagues, The IETF meeting agenda is up, although this is not the "final" one. The WEIRDS BOF is scheduled for Wednesday morning, 09:00-11:30. Here's the conflict list: 102 APP weirds 101B INT netext 201 DEF OPS v6ops 3F Banquet RAI bfcpbis 101C RAI ecrit 201 ABC RTG pwe3 101A TSV tcpm If any of that makes for a serious problem, please let me know as soon as possible; but I wouldn't hold out too much hope for adjustments. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From jay@nzrs.net.nz Mon Oct 24 06:53:56 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 5790E21F8BF8 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6AD6-SMqr+Ra for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0C221F8C40 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE692CE143 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:53:49 +1300 (NZDT) 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 oE7IWet9-H2K for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:53:49 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [10.196.228.183] (unknown [199.91.194.1]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEFC82CE139 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:53:48 +1300 (NZDT) From: Jay Daley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:53:50 +0000 Message-Id: <89982017-B2CD-4D0E-8FBD-5C9BFCB2C7E5@nzrs.net.nz> To: weirds@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Subject: [weirds] SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure 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, 24 Oct 2011 13:53:56 -0000 For those of you that have not seen this, the SSAC published a report on = WHOIS Terminology and Structure back in September. One of a long series = trying to get something done about WHOIS (sorry, "Domain Name Directory = Registration Data - Access Protocol" and "Domain Name Registration Data = - Directory Service" ! ) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf 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 sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 24 08:17:54 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 E31E321F8C4F for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Vb60FXmVzjs for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:17:50 -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 C598821F8AE1 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9OFHhs3000457; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319469468; bh=g5hrcJZkJRoRF1JJE6vJUe0inHya+zd5oPhlNMHoWfI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=rBxUIr3MIgrqa7f5W5TSeyake/paTFcKdHGBwpYrgl/LxW7H6v55KJ4hJMVoZP+2o cQwpw1bWCsrjrpc24dUB7Fh2DGfG2epPROjm37QMi6Xv5H220nja48T1PrpdS5ym1k LdA3H9d2Z+4Nbi6k/eJ0kxyRZOHh1hQqTJCzEv7A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319469468; bh=g5hrcJZkJRoRF1JJE6vJUe0inHya+zd5oPhlNMHoWfI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=h2dGL+0RDx4iKA/FbgkvJBFQWGB9tcyq4GCBUhbmNPuBTfntQQwNfd5IoAYJ2+ubQ oitokopxdPPN10kfF3AWRiFBBiL9kCvAPmQYZbfZV7Y4Gi6TNy2wux+cJ66kojDEEO kM+oQnpeoFlH97opFLa6MmhElEmUTVbkr1+1dLR8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111024072154.0a9c30a8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:44:52 -0700 To: Jay Daley From: SM In-Reply-To: <89982017-B2CD-4D0E-8FBD-5C9BFCB2C7E5@nzrs.net.nz> References: <89982017-B2CD-4D0E-8FBD-5C9BFCB2C7E5@nzrs.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure 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, 24 Oct 2011 15:17:55 -0000 Hi Jay, At 06:53 24-10-2011, Jay Daley wrote: >For those of you that have not seen this, the SSAC published a report on WHOIS Thanks. > Terminology and Structure back in September. One of a long series > trying to get something done about WHOIS (sorry, "Domain Name > Directory Registration Data - Access Protocol" and "Domain Name > Registration Data - Directory Service" ! ) The first recommendation is about terminology. It's up to Domain Name Registration Vendors to adopt that. The second recommendation is for the ICANN Community to evaluate and adopt an access protocol that supports internationalization. The third recommendation is for the ICANN Community to develop a framework for accessing the data with support for authentication and authorization. Is there a mailing list to follow the discussions of the ICANN Community about the framework? Regards, -sm From jay@nzrs.net.nz Mon Oct 24 09:01:24 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 2587021F8DE9 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfOngdHf77go for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5DA21F8DD4 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDC92CE143; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:01:20 +1300 (NZDT) 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 5n6kfcvAz+a9; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:01:19 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [10.196.228.183] (unknown [199.91.194.1]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C8A22CE139; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:01:17 +1300 (NZDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111024072154.0a9c30a8@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:22 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <89982017-B2CD-4D0E-8FBD-5C9BFCB2C7E5@nzrs.net.nz> <6.2.5.6.2.20111024072154.0a9c30a8@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure 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, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:24 -0000 On 24/10/2011, at 2:44 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Jay, > At 06:53 24-10-2011, Jay Daley wrote: >> For those of you that have not seen this, the SSAC published a report = on WHOIS >=20 > Thanks. >=20 >> Terminology and Structure back in September. One of a long series = trying to get something done about WHOIS (sorry, "Domain Name Directory = Registration Data - Access Protocol" and "Domain Name Registration Data = - Directory Service" ! ) >=20 > The first recommendation is about terminology. It's up to Domain Name = Registration Vendors to adopt that. >=20 > The second recommendation is for the ICANN Community to evaluate and = adopt an access protocol that supports internationalization. >=20 > The third recommendation is for the ICANN Community to develop a = framework for accessing the data with support for authentication and = authorization. >=20 > Is there a mailing list to follow the discussions of the ICANN = Community about the framework? I'm not sure if this is tied in with the WHOIS work going on in ICANN or = would be a follow-on project. I'll ask around. Jay >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840