I brought this issue to WEIRDS early on (specifically= , RFC6570), specifically because I knew this issue was coming, but the posi= tion of WEIRDS participants has repeatedly been that our use case is an exc= eption; it's "an elegant solution to a problem we don't have&q= uot;.=A0 I decided not to press the matter because you guys are actually do= ing implementations and I'm not, so I yield to your expertise end exper= ience.

Two things to note: (a) The work in APPSAWG (draft-ietf-apps= awg-uri-get-off-my-lawn, specifically) is seeking BCP status and appears to= have quite a bit of support, so I don't think WEIRDS can brush it off = again.=A0 (b) The REPUTE working group (where I was author of most of the d= ocuments) did follow what that draft says; it wasn't difficult to code = and is deployed, so at least there's an implemented and working example= , which means most of the hard work WEIRDS clients need to do is already do= ne in the form of open source libraries.

My personal opinion will not be part of this discussion, and= if necessary I will recuse myself from consensus calls in both working gro= ups.=A0 This is for the participants on both sides to hash out.

I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if= not, I hope he'll talk to us on the list.=A0 Given the existing suppor= t for the matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we= don't at least have a good argument for staying our present course.

-MSK

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us&= gt; wrote:

During yesterday's APPWG, there was a pr= esentation about the
get-off-my-lawn draft (draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00). The
presentation points out the RDAP query draft
(draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query) as being in violation of some of these
best practices. When Murray, who chairs both this group and APPWG,
asked about the conflict, the response was "But we are right."
Mark, is it possible we could get an explanation to the WEIRDS working
group of what we are doing wrong and why? If possible, I think we
should a lot agenda time on Thursday if Mark can make it. Otherwise, I
think a discussion on this list would be welcomed.

-andy
_______________________________________________
weirds mailing list
weirds@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

--001a11c25c9e0733fc04ea79adec-- From mnot@mnot.net Tue Nov 5 17:14:02 2013 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 F173C21E80D2 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:14:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.488 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.889, 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 IndtdeWpbjF9 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6C011E818C for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-b641.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [31.133.182.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E6C822E256; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 20:13:48 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CAFF6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:13:46 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <63C129D5-E620-40ED-AF8E-31840C4D88C0@mnot.net> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CAFF6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 19:25:03 -0800 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 01:14:02 -0000 Hi Scott et al, Unfortunately, I=92m already double-booked during that slot.=20 I can provide some detailed feedback / explanation / suggestions via = e-mail soon, if that works. I could also (or alternatively) catch up = with people informally after that slot. Cheers, On 5 Nov 2013, at 3:07 pm, Hollenbeck, Scott = wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Andrew Newton >> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:54 PM >> To: weirds@ietf.org; Mark Nottingham >> Subject: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn >>=20 >> During yesterday's APPWG, there was a presentation about the >> get-off-my-lawn draft (draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00). = The >> presentation points out the RDAP query draft >> (draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query) as being in violation of some of these >> best practices. When Murray, who chairs both this group and APPWG, >> asked about the conflict, the response was "But we are right." >>=20 >> Mark, is it possible we could get an explanation to the WEIRDS = working >> group of what we are doing wrong and why? If possible, I think we >> should a lot agenda time on Thursday if Mark can make it. Otherwise, = I >> think a discussion on this list would be welcomed. >=20 > Agreed. I'd also appreciate specific suggestions for changes to the = syntax described in rdap-query. >=20 > Scott -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From andy@hxr.us Tue Nov 5 23:15:56 2013 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 5622211E8128 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:15:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 vvLe05a1mWxK for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E99C11E80E0 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id g10so9667469pdj.20 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:15:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0T5XHzOGMUyq4kagT8UTsWi4TcRA307zjNRaDeDj0Ko=; b=XoGXVddVCePQ1G0bXbgl4qwssLAoU/af+U6rKEWJWxClKyDshnkeB/93hmShtE/vop 1euYQPyKBXs/37RbyOYhN6dsQQasg0Xv5DJK++EV/9VwELJnxiPUMz8vV+eB+Awjqhj2 DjPoZCGloo7tgU12hCH60jhy8emD/SuN2Q4CYfSYLlGTHT+7U0m2swjSpaCyqEoQNxZd 8n/yLmtK0DaqpX7gba6cXdWyMdQ6OgHEf4cIpv/CNvpMqaLps9z7S6J+6+QjYw606E/R K9wXTv1QGUR1BhDkIl1kwoZ7TFPDYcnkveVkwh2jC4M/6aVNUaSPjCUWJtzIhkH2IG+E 0rQA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJGFLcD1hpNYHWaAM76MlJPHmRC2v4H1bp+XKmwENvqv1AHz85NWTv0JJiE3ctBonsmt5b MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.250.163 with SMTP id zd3mr2364043pac.109.1383722150051; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.49.194 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:15:49 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [31.133.151.74] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:15:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andrew Newton To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Mark Nottingham , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 07:15:56 -0000 On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if not, > I hope he'll talk to us on the list. Given the existing support for the > matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don't at least > have a good argument for staying our present course. I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to have reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their needs and disagrees with it. Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well. -andy From superuser@gmail.com Wed Nov 6 02:08:41 2013 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 2492711E814C for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:08:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 uzPNLfI+FUSA for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:08:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F29611E8126 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:08:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b13so4588288wgh.3 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:08:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=azdnQflOjcp+xHb/rZ9E1MkUq+6O3StzcCE13tAgb5Q=; b=o6n5ZrPCyndQBcT+WJ+5p7mQ7ndhUQQ8X84cSvgEUwoAL7D2y2wdlrqUpeuPaorZYo Pxqhl6myMBKHSV/1A6FkyGfJg6ljCni1opB5E8iysw/pU8tVSq7ye34e9oXawi1zIMfb gLhZMi/rOGF0+YZA/uytp2Tg75dhyjkbkkXyqFPcTgkk7QD5FVR7wTtjOOdgo00jziKh X0JU5KMX82crJ/Q53s+lwHWhEbUMLTLZn2SseVJY/XK5B+sQcGmLp73T8TTpwofr3CUO eB49WcgrszlEyn3wUsB/vqeNf9YLD/GJWY8K7Q7TcatvLTtW08xjWxKWcWjrci1iPwHF ngzw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr1771863wix.19.1383732519156; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:08:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:08:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Andrew Newton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444037844c6a404ea7f559c Cc: Mark Nottingham , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 10:08:41 -0000 --f46d0444037844c6a404ea7f559c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm curious about that myself, since nobody has said anything about it having consensus yet. What I did say is that it has existing support in APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, which was evident if you were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discuss mailing list. But it doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that point, because that question hasn't been called. -MSK On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Newton wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > > I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if > not, > > I hope he'll talk to us on the list. Given the existing support for the > > matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don't at least > > have a good argument for staying our present course. > > I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to have > reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their > needs and disagrees with it. > > Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly > if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and > if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well. > > -andy > --f46d0444037844c6a404ea7f559c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm curious about that myself, since nobody has s= aid anything about it having consensus yet.=A0 What I did say is that it ha= s existing support in APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, wh= ich was evident if you were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discus= s mailing list.=A0 But it doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that p= oint, because that question hasn't been called.

-MSK

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:2= 3 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu= ser@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if= not,
> I hope he'll talk to us on the list. =A0Given the existing support= for the
> matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don&= #39;t at least
> have a good argument for staying our present course.

I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to= have
reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their
needs and disagrees with it.

Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly
if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and
if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well.

-andy

--f46d0444037844c6a404ea7f559c-- From aservin@lacnic.net Wed Nov 6 02:57:10 2013 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 3C15721E80E8 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:57:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.756, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, 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 NTPz3iji8hWJ for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBBE21E80CB for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.105] (r186-48-247-55.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.247.55]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4970308427; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:56:21 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <527A206C.7070208@lacnic.net> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:56:44 -0200 From: Arturo Servin Organization: LACNIC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , Andrew Newton References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000505090207050905060308" 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: Mark Nottingham , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 10:57:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000505090207050905060308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit APPSAWG =! WEIRDS We do not have the same needs and requirements. Perhaps APPSAWG needs to hear more from WEIRDS before going ahead. Best regards, as On 11/6/13, 8:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I'm curious about that myself, since nobody has said anything about it > having consensus yet. What I did say is that it has existing support > in APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, which was > evident if you were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discuss > mailing list. But it doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that > point, because that question hasn't been called. > > -MSK > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Newton > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy > > wrote: > > I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, > or if not, > > I hope he'll talk to us on the list. Given the existing support > for the > > matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don't > at least > > have a good argument for staying our present course. > > I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to have > reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their > needs and disagrees with it. > > Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly > if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and > if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well. > > -andy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --------------000505090207050905060308 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
APPSAWG =! WEIRDS

We do not have the same needs and requirements.

Perhaps APPSAWG needs to hear more from WEIRDS before going ahead.

Best regards,
as

On 11/6/13, 8:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

I'm curious about that myself, since nobody has said anything about it having consensus yet. What I did say is that it has existing support in APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, which was evident if you were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discuss mailing list. But it doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that point, because that question hasn't been called.

-MSK

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if not,
> I hope he'll talk to us on the list. Given the existing support for the
> matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don't at least
> have a good argument for staying our present course.

I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to have
reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their
needs and disagrees with it.

Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly
if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and
if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well.

-andy
_______________________________________________
weirds mailing list
weirds@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

--------------000505090207050905060308-- From andy@hxr.us Wed Nov 6 06:15:15 2013 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 34A0911E81D7 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:15:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.81 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 ZgE01ZVhsbMy for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:15:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com (mail-pa0-f42.google.com [209.85.220.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FA411E8150 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:15:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id kp14so10648475pab.29 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:15:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wdQ70tWWJpRZKceZLU+TsMTAStNHRFFQrc6XJbTc7YY=; b=hFP/IAk2rsvGYuPZ/H6dMXShP/os3sBiZd1dlvE2PWRmI7s8r0SJZtQLOPa7ZVfEIW kvAwJo55FTKsD9R9JguDl//wPEWjCoqcDndfoa0Pv+2qRSJ1SnVWG0zdUqf2b4wmtQOX Iyb5NH98fVh95CLrkY7TBl/tZmgTuu5fJNfpuiSPU4rvcvhh6sVgdhGktSHaw2ghMoxR GqAEB6LKR2l/kTOAYPMuUIHJdiNUA07s0ay0R7zKvq5BIK60Sy+w46IyXJ+p3SLbOT2A rzsRx2W7UiwaSveKSG7InvXYOCbFeUeYGiJEq9ZV5JVRvmLTjFiElUCCkzQjBiM//3zs tOfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlqvooQuz+ryLgNYY2Ok6maGqaUmKXGmTWH3c6mf33D3d7xjWt1rR3aEaSnMg4Uq3fuk0vJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.67.3.3 with SMTP id bs3mr4238344pad.46.1383747308968; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 06:15:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.49.194 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:15:08 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [31.133.151.74] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:15:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andrew Newton To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Mark Nottingham , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 14:15:15 -0000 Murray, I was merely trying to figure out your statement regarding how a DISCUSS could be lodged against a WEIRDS doc on the grounds of a BCP that has not reached IETF-wide consensus. However I'll set aside this thought experiment for now as it appears to be a distraction. Hopefully this is to be a good test case for the application of Mark's draft, and so we probably all benefit from a discussion. -andy On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I'm curious about that myself, since nobody has said anything about it > having consensus yet. What I did say is that it has existing support in > APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, which was evident if you > were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discuss mailing list. But it > doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that point, because that question > hasn't been called. > > -MSK > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Newton wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy >> wrote: >> > I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if >> > not, >> > I hope he'll talk to us on the list. Given the existing support for the >> > matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don't at least >> > have a good argument for staying our present course. >> >> I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to have >> reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their >> needs and disagrees with it. >> >> Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly >> if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and >> if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well. >> >> -andy > > From superuser@gmail.com Wed Nov 6 09:29:07 2013 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 778FC21E814D for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 kZ1CmMJmQN+d for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B6621E8142 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hm4so4139903wib.8 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:29:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wABUdJh7zSa5j1dYfaj/K9J15kfsOxjTLaEQpvuEhqY=; b=ToRBZ+l7nH5PPjzD2yCvvIHOiPYtM/x28YwCAozRnTO+vC30/PbJ/1QpSE0TY/gOed dM/ZKwh2rY+qssk7oSmtiBqdnSrmD7MJ0W25DvfnDVI4X4LwZxId7skdapcmXmLysL2R 6yh0bovqLlRHrM0C8q5N995rJVJ7C71qGQHNT4wZZtfoVmyF2ziR3VAYIWwE7pnmh5e2 GOjLjffTovc5R3TIyDqiUiz7k5b/hU1gMdlbdpLvtIMfyO4KAa4qPLg+hU3/zKITxTg8 EW3WDG2IPeDJeauHWBdWOuqkdgkSMCQjh9wDtdf0pwIjYYMP4fLZh0lLdONcXRlFtork P6sg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr3387169wix.19.1383758945925; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:29:05 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044403786d445404ea857ca3 Subject: [weirds] Slides for IETF 88 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, 06 Nov 2013 17:29:07 -0000 --f46d044403786d445404ea857ca3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Colleagues, If you're on the list for presentations tomorrow and plan to use slides but have not sent them yet, please email them to weirds-chairs@tools.ietf.orgsometime today. I will not be able to accept last-minute submissions or USB keys. Thanks! -MSK --f46d044403786d445404ea857ca3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Colleagues,

If you're on the list for presentat= ions tomorrow and plan to use slides but have not sent them yet, please ema= il them to weirds-chairs@to= ols.ietf.org sometime today.=A0 I will not be able to accept last-minut= e submissions or USB keys.

Thanks!

-MSK

--f46d044403786d445404ea857ca3-- From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Wed Nov 6 10:04:54 2013 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 6CE9011E8133 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:04:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 AHOHZI7D3xgM for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410D311E80F9 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:04:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1383761090; x=1415297090; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ObdK5xcCNbEMONzAwsjc5R8kieDkludCKsd6SyjE8xM=; b=j4BPqQQb7bLiJRZe7vp8GuUiaKPNeurFmEQLMrXaB71IeoSV5gk3sZmi I/Ff4+nVVT5ki/ZmFxoMUpmjJLWENgAIo+HZPL9qI5hEEbYjB1rg1mZob lhGu1Azx8DYvScfjEb7OW4alnGNBIQnt0pIXtFZvZLxiF6lHLk5JqzMSK 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7251"; a="85382620" Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7250"; a="633992358" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 06 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 Received: from dhcp-bd05.meeting.ietf.org (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:04:49 -0800 Message-ID: <527A84C0.5010905@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:04:48 -0800 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Newton References:

In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: Mark Nottingham , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 18:04:54 -0000 On 11/6/13 6:15 AM, Andrew Newton wrote: > I was merely trying to figure out your statement regarding how a > DISCUSS could be lodged against a WEIRDS doc on the grounds of a BCP > that has not reached IETF-wide consensus. A legitimate technical issue, whether part of a BCP or not, is a perfectly reasonable justification for a chair not declaring consensus in a WG, and is certainly a justification for a DISCUSSion with the IESG. The claim (made by Arturo, not you) that somehow WEIRDS gets to do things that APPSAWG will disagree with in the end is not tenable; consensus is an IETF-wide concept, not limited to the members of any particular WG. The IETF is an open, cross-area (let alone cross-group) organization. Let's figure out the concern here and see if we should and can address it. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From aservin@lacnic.net Wed Nov 6 10:24:07 2013 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 7CD7A11E817C for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:24:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5EXxnlkDHdj8 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4356311E815A for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from 87-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [200.7.87.33]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973D130843C; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:23:26 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <527A893C.1070501@lacnic.net> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:23:56 -0200 From: Arturo Servin Organization: LACNIC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , Andrew Newton References:

<527A84C0.5010905@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <527A84C0.5010905@qti.qualcomm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mark Nottingham , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn 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, 06 Nov 2013 18:24:07 -0000 On 11/6/13, 4:04 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 11/6/13 6:15 AM, Andrew Newton wrote: >> I was merely trying to figure out your statement regarding how a >> DISCUSS could be lodged against a WEIRDS doc on the grounds of a BCP >> that has not reached IETF-wide consensus. > > A legitimate technical issue, whether part of a BCP or not, is a > perfectly reasonable justification for a chair not declaring consensus > in a WG, and is certainly a justification for a DISCUSSion with the > IESG. The claim (made by Arturo, not you) that somehow WEIRDS gets to > do things that APPSAWG will disagree with in the end is not tenable; > consensus is an IETF-wide concept, not limited to the members of any > particular WG. The IETF is an open, cross-area (let alone cross-group) > organization. > > Let's figure out the concern here and see if we should and can address > it. > > pr > That seems appropiate. /as From superuser@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 08:21:47 2013 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 0F7CE21E8120 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:21:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 gRJQgkAJ6YJn for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402E621E811D for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so771124wgg.16 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:21:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+G/kJzS3B3ttQX3px47tHIRJPuhmpVj+OvWeg5qfwRc=; b=e0ddBefrrVdZJJvCz9Pcg31Cg+yoMhN8vcNW5r+Q5N5h9FKW+uqbghMHjXE1vjchld 1avH7+5t8Za5eX9FoSCxj69k99ehjeV3MST1djHyaF2DA5pIagz+fETw/wX3iMyOpK1L ePbHnqoqJVXlkITQ9ravt02pbcH/OZotRiELmXEcZjh/2SLfn3yPL61PJVhPzDe8JWX/ dibr50LOP31m9NRQtNqT2Errgx0URNigKT2XJg+jwghkrMZwyCnkdSwHjCBMvzoRmsWp Lfq43Mk+ROIbbApVUJLEpTWCCoUDSStUY16Y0BKRSs0Xt718/TSCRSDM1En49G7e48h8 xiIA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.212.51 with SMTP id nh19mr3398640wic.52.1383841305396; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:21:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:21:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c357606f0b7d04ea98a9a9 Subject: [weirds] URI syntax discussion X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:21:47 -0000 --001a11c357606f0b7d04ea98a9a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Colleagues, I've added a slot at the top of our meeting to discuss the URI syntax issue. We will have Barry Leiba and (hopefully) Mark Nottingham in the room just for the few minutes at the top of the meeting and then they'll have to leave as they're needed elsewhere. If this is an important issue to you, please don't be late! -MSK --001a11c357606f0b7d04ea98a9a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Colleagues,

I've added a slot at the top o= f our meeting to discuss the URI syntax issue.=A0 We will have Barry Leiba = and (hopefully) Mark Nottingham in the room just for the few minutes at the= top of the meeting and then they'll have to leave as they're neede= d elsewhere.=A0 If this is an important issue to you, please don't be l= ate!

-MSK

--001a11c357606f0b7d04ea98a9a9-- From superuser@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 08:40:01 2013 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 92F5F11E8261 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:40:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 feLgpmg+Dgtk for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16AD111E80DC for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:39:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q58so798748wes.28 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:39:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=PsITlKe42XskRKtSRTM9IOhINF7TS08l4oQ9rwcwwsY=; b=rIkZcMqH1ftvkFIuizQkY1C2a8XcHn+s6Gh0fepaSKBLVP7QynoNC/xrE0uttxnh5y t8LlJHFm6C9H+7QUkXG/mbGsrOM+GPGuSAmfurkeSMOW6hzNhrsxnBQ6GC1lbjkZcw6N hKlGQwuq53R2nMYwWmNgvwpyRiK5g9L8fi1h5hfzRxsshCpVe7NzPbJWQMsjoUbBFQVX XLIm99bkLhzuMrQ7JfPNtEJLRocL6Ir4csLK3brMHQOMUcjBhS0ldaQ2DifEXXud1QTc q8QokYDzrTId69Y4xOhU10a+hcTeavya2eDyLoGqrU/dWiAmACyWqQiRvXHS1M8g6h3G m1WA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.212.51 with SMTP id nh19mr3464234wic.52.1383842354251; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:39:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:39:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:39:14 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c35760f34f1e04ea98e73b Subject: [weirds] IETF 88 slides uploaded X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:40:01 -0000 --001a11c35760f34f1e04ea98e73b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've uploaded all of the slides we've received to date. They are visible here: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/weirds/agenda?item=agenda-88-weirds.html If your slide deck does not appear there, or it's the wrong one, then I don't have it (or couldn't find it) so please send it again ASAP. See you all this afternoon, -MSK --001a11c35760f34f1e04ea98e73b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I've uploaded all of the slides we've re= ceived to date.=A0 They are visible here:

http://tools.ietf.org= /wg/weirds/agenda?item=3Dagenda-88-weirds.html

If your slide deck does not appear there, or it's the wrong o= ne, then I don't have it (or couldn't find it) so please send it ag= ain ASAP.

See you all this afternoon,

-MSK

--001a11c35760f34f1e04ea98e73b-- From superuser@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 18:26:57 2013 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 1373021E814B for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:26:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.241 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.242, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-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 aGE4XH9fW2DI for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E832E21E8119 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u57so1388233wes.32 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=D2qRSKbeBVklv1CHI5A2Tq3HUgfVqD2SLDpIaUQlTZA=; b=VKyY9UQm550YH5VdAFwFq5IjMnVqACaFrLjKR0Xfry+92bJRmMP5c67aPNuhn3DdCV OEAl39pV4u2ex7wIjNTRUxrhSgkNjdK1Giq2XOIFoaItkCfpKziz5ZcSyoKrCc4oFFR4 +HHic+PM65F892XIClUUnumMr3dAomqkhuValuKsO2WzQeRmmrlQOrfFdv1Bz83m2J8e Lr5q5MdEAgirLRYzClG4CTj+Cxmvb1+wosyYaottRx87jsJzumsj0X0uOpgOCVwGIIws N9Z1MVRQ6d/LjwXtkAEgF5TTQPTRxXIgOlgEdSzdmPEUNb8bHdmyWJtZxEN1Oxl4ZRZr +kGw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr390456wix.19.1383877614863; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:26:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04440378a5903704eaa11d7a Subject: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like 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, 08 Nov 2013 02:26:57 -0000 --f46d04440378a5903704eaa11d7a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 We talked today about using well-known URI space, and optionally templates as well. Here's my understanding of what they'd look like: For well-known, we would apply the procedure found in RFC5785 and register "rdap" with IANA. This means we effectively claim http:///.well-known/rdap as our own URI space, and would be free to define URI structure under there. This would basically add an IANA action to our query draft, and our URIs would now always contain ".well-known" followed by the name we register before the structure we define. For templates, we would do the above, and then declare that what's found at or under http:///.well-known/rdap is a URI template (RFC6570). A template would take one or more key values, primarily the question to be asked, and then construct a URI based on the template. This means the service is free to define any query syntax it wants to establish for its service. For example, you might get a template that says: http://{service}/rdap/q={query} We would need to define all the key values are expected to appear in a template so that the query can be expanded. For example, we would say a client has to have "service" and "query" available for substitution into the template. The result is this process, assuming you want to ask a service called rdap.example about example.com: 1) Request http://rdap.example/.well-known/rdap, and get back a template. (This can be cached.) Suppose the returned template is as above. 2) Build the template using the available values, resulting in http://rdap.example/rdap/q=example.com. 3) Issue that query. There's an obvious added cost of doing the second round trip in the templates method, but it can be far more flexible in terms of query syntax, and the template itself can be cached. An example of this second method that recently passed IESG Review and is awaiting publication is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-11. It has more detail than I've given above. There is at least one actual implementations of this, so libraries and text are both available. We could have gone the basic ".well-known/repute" route, but I found the ".well-known" part unsightly, which this group may or may not agree with. -MSK --f46d04440378a5903704eaa11d7a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We talke= d today about using well-known URI space, and optionally templates as well.= =A0 Here's my understanding of what they'd look like:

= For well-known, we would apply the procedure found in RFC5785 and register = "rdap" with IANA.=A0 This means we effectively claim http://<s= erver>/.well-known/rdap as our own URI space, and would be free to defin= e URI structure under there.=A0 This would basically add an IANA action to = our query draft, and our URIs would now always contain ".well-known&qu= ot; followed by the name we register before the structure we define.

For templates, we would do the above, and then declare that what&= #39;s found at or under http://<server>/.well-known/rdap is a URI tem= plate (RFC6570).=A0 A template would take one or more key values, primarily= the question to be asked, and then construct a URI based on the template.= =A0 This means the service is free to define any query syntax it wants to e= stablish for its service.=A0 For example, you might get a template that say= s:

http://{service}/rdap/q=3D{query}

We would need to d= efine all the key values are expected to appear in a template so that the q= uery can be expanded.=A0 For example, we would say a client has to have &qu= ot;service" and "query" available for substitution into the = template.=A0 The result is this process, assuming you want to ask a service= called rdap.example about example.com:<= br>

1) Request http:= //rdap.example/.well-known/rdap, and get back a template.=A0 (This can = be cached.)=A0 Suppose the returned template is as above.

2) B= uild the template using the available values, resulting in http://rdap.example/rdap/q=3Dexample.c= om.

3) Issue that query.

There's an obvious added co= st of doing the second round trip in the templates method, but it can be fa= r more flexible in terms of query syntax, and the template itself can be ca= ched.

An example of this second method that recently passed IESG Review= and is awaiting publication is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-qu= ery-http-11.=A0 It has more detail than I've given above.=A0 There = is at least one actual implementations of this, so libraries and text are b= oth available.=A0 We could have gone the basic ".well-known/repute&quo= t; route, but I found the ".well-known" part unsightly, which thi= s group may or may not agree with.

-MSK

--f46d04440378a5903704eaa11d7a-- From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Nov 7 18:34:47 2013 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 0C12211E81B9 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:34:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, 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 kiCeU9oISuns for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:34:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og105.obsmtp.com (exprod6og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B530D21E8119 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:34:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob105.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUnxNwM5TASrBzaCxqCaF4uU5Fzb9/kr2@postini.com; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:34:41 PST Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id rA82YdOx020050 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:34:39 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:34:39 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like Thread-Index: AQHO3CoDAl8RCExqNE+cG1+Gym25bZoanMsg Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 02:34:38 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like 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, 08 Nov 2013 02:34:47 -0000 --_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The well-known URI space approach would be a simple change from what's curr= ently in the query draft. It seems like an easier path forward. Scott From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:27 PM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like We talked today about using well-known URI space, and optionally templates = as well. Here's my understanding of what they'd look like: For well-known, we would apply the procedure found in RFC5785 and register = "rdap" with IANA. This means we effectively claim http:///.well-kn= own/rdap as our own URI space, and wo= uld be free to define URI structure under there. This would basically add = an IANA action to our query draft, and our URIs would now always contain ".= well-known" followed by the name we register before the structure we define= . For templates, we would do the above, and then declare that what's found at= or under http:///.well-known/rdap is a URI template (RFC6570). A template would take one or more key v= alues, primarily the question to be asked, and then construct a URI based o= n the template. This means the service is free to define any query syntax = it wants to establish for its service. For example, you might get a templa= te that says: http://{service}/rdap/q=3D{query} We would need to define all the key values are expected to appear in a temp= late so that the query can be expanded. For example, we would say a client= has to have "service" and "query" available for substitution into the temp= late. The result is this process, assuming you want to ask a service calle= d rdap.example about example.com: 1) Request http://rdap.example/.well-known/rdap, and get back a template. = (This can be cached.) Suppose the returned template is as above. 2) Build the template using the available values, resulting in http://rdap.= example/rdap/q=3Dexample.com. 3) Issue that query. There's an obvious added cost of doing the second round trip in the templat= es method, but it can be far more flexible in terms of query syntax, and th= e template itself can be cached. An example of this second method that recently passed IESG Review and is aw= aiting publication is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-ht= tp-11. It has more detail than I've given above. There is at least one ac= tual implementations of this, so libraries and text are both available. We= could have gone the basic ".well-known/repute" route, but I found the ".we= ll-known" part unsightly, which this group may or may not agree with. -MSK --_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The well-known URI space approach would be= a simple change from what’s currently in the query draft. It seems l= ike an easier path forward.

Scott

From: weirds-b= ounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:27 PM
To: weirds@ietf.org
Subject: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like=

We talked today about= using well-known URI space, and optionally templates as well. Here's= my understanding of what they'd look like:

For well-known, we wo= uld apply the procedure found in RFC5785 and register "rdap" with= IANA. This means we effectively claim http://<server>/.wel= l-known/rdap as our own URI space, and would be free to define URI stru= cture under there. This would basically add an IANA action to our que= ry draft, and our URIs would now always contain ".well-known" followed by the name we register before the struct= ure we define.

For templates, we wou= ld do the above, and then declare that what's found at or under http://<server>/.wel= l-known/rdap is a URI template (RFC6570). A template would take o= ne or more key values, primarily the question to be asked, and then constru= ct a URI based on the template. This means the service is free to define any query syntax it wants to establish for its s= ervice. For example, you might get a template that says:

http://{service}/rdap/q=3D{query}=

We would need to defi= ne all the key values are expected to appear in a template so that the quer= y can be expanded. For example, we would say a client has to have &qu= ot;service" and "query" available for substitution into the template. The result is this process, assuming you want to = ask a service called rdap.example about example.com:

1) Request http://rdap.example/.well-known/rdap, and get back a template. (T= his can be cached.) Suppose the returned template is as above.

2) Build the template= using the available values, resulting in http://rdap.example/rd= ap/q=3Dexample.com.

3) Issue that query.<= o:p>

There's an obvious ad= ded cost of doing the second round trip in the templates method, but it can= be far more flexible in terms of query syntax, and the template itself can= be cached.

An example of this se= cond method that recently passed IESG Review and is awaiting publication is http= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-11. It has mo= re detail than I've given above. There is at least one actual impleme= ntations of this, so libraries and text are both available. We could have gone the basic ".well-known/reput= e" route, but I found the ".well-known" part unsightly, whic= h this group may or may not agree with.

-MSK

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_-- From carlosm3011@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 18:39:32 2013 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 ED5A921E816A for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:39:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-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 rqNwmsVRPFxd for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qe0-x229.google.com (mail-qe0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BC521E80F4 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qe0-f41.google.com with SMTP id x7so1412798qeu.28 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:39:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hOwo/NkjX1B4vUhvMv6xnOO7mbDNQdrT6tAcxFFLoo8=; b=wkr153gMbq7m0X3Md+uy/Dod+znrHopYdftIXKAscPHsu84glwHOPDACE9PQiBXA9C qwyhoDKNfQbZLWkgeQxXh+Dhfqdc7p7s+MTWLBqfgrCzOMcnZvZmKjbxHRN8PuA1kx4d v9NqaJPa8IrRCY6FWkhSVOPoDrZ7W12LsJYv0UEI8variwSbO6WVD8ow6aeuRFtA+WH+ jUuy3xLZApEIRPeuf7XsYkRSKM9NxXSMrUHCjl6a7azwCUYsxyW7FV7Q4Z1aIYeMo+88 SZCNHmRRJGUx/lK6AViidvptawLmSDximstmNY1q/VLEOQjtjAkm+XoD1g/rFJXYiSEZ ZE8A== X-Received: by 10.236.13.3 with SMTP id a3mr3130942yha.21.1383878366215; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:39:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([2001:470:d815:fe0:d800:380c:2eaf:c350]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g14sm11639114yhb.23.2013.11.07.18.39.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:39:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <527C4ED8.3010601@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:39:20 -0200 From: "Carlos M. Martinez" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: carlos@lacnic.net 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, 08 Nov 2013 02:39:32 -0000 +1 On 11/8/13, 12:34 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > The well-known URI space approach would be a simple change from what�s > currently in the query draft. It seems like an easier path forward. > > > > Scott > > > > *From:*weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf Of *Murray S. Kucherawy > *Sent:* Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:27 PM > *To:* weirds@ietf.org > *Subject:* [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like > > > > We talked today about using well-known URI space, and optionally > templates as well. Here's my understanding of what they'd look like: > > For well-known, we would apply the procedure found in RFC5785 and > register "rdap" with IANA. This means we effectively claim > http:///.well-known/rdap > as our own URI space, and would be free to define URI structure under > there. This would basically add an IANA action to our query draft, and > our URIs would now always contain ".well-known" followed by the name we > register before the structure we define. > > For templates, we would do the above, and then declare that what's found > at or under http:///.well-known/rdap > is a URI template (RFC6570). A > template would take one or more key values, primarily the question to be > asked, and then construct a URI based on the template. This means the > service is free to define any query syntax it wants to establish for its > service. For example, you might get a template that says: > > http://{service}/rdap/q={query} > > We would need to define all the key values are expected to appear in a > template so that the query can be expanded. For example, we would say a > client has to have "service" and "query" available for substitution into > the template. The result is this process, assuming you want to ask a > service called rdap.example about example.com : > > 1) Request http://rdap.example/.well-known/rdap, and get back a > template. (This can be cached.) Suppose the returned template is as above. > > 2) Build the template using the available values, resulting in > http://rdap.example/rdap/q=example.com. > > 3) Issue that query. > > There's an obvious added cost of doing the second round trip in the > templates method, but it can be far more flexible in terms of query > syntax, and the template itself can be cached. > > An example of this second method that recently passed IESG Review and is > awaiting publication is > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-11. It has more > detail than I've given above. There is at least one actual > implementations of this, so libraries and text are both available. We > could have gone the basic ".well-known/repute" route, but I found the > ".well-known" part unsightly, which this group may or may not agree with. > > -MSK > > > > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Fri Nov 8 07:45:11 2013 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 1659B11E823F for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:45:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, 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 JVEjhs836Oaz for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689AC21E8189 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from h195.viagenie.ca (h195.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.195]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1EDE4040A for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:42:02 -0500 (EST) From: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <45E97829-658A-4D28-BF2C-411C82726648@viagenie.ca> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:42:01 -0800 To: "weirds@ietf.org Group" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: [weirds] exact match search 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, 08 Nov 2013 15:45:11 -0000 Hello, I would like to try to better express what I was trying to say at the = mike at the end of the search-i18n discussion. I think I forgot to say = the thinking behind what I say, which helps understand my point. Hope I = will succeed this time! So: - there are/will be various kind of rdap "clients": = "well-implemented-following-the-spec clients, "domain-name-industry" = clients. Both hopefully have some insight of issues.=20 - but there is also the regular web developer, that has no clue of all = this, and just heard by searching Internet that now whois is replaced by = rdap and he needs for all kind of reasons to do some search/lookup of = names so that the app interface is nicer for users (and here I'm not = talking about the registrar industry) - I bet that the regular web developer will only take the input from the = user and don't do anything about IDNA and just spit out that utf-8 = string to the server, therefore most likely not a properly prepared = U-label. - I bet that this will happen "often". Therefore, here was my question at the mike: should we write something = in the specification about this, not necessarily about the specific use = case, but about what we should expect from the client and (mostly) the = server behavior. Of course, it could be "just reject" as it is implied = now, but I wonder that given that it would be a "often" use case, we = should be writing a bit more about that. Our interop testing with = various i18n test cases this week also hinted that(need for more clarity = in the spec) too. Marc.= From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Fri Nov 8 07:56:14 2013 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 7E12D11E823B for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:56:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 mrpc8jMCpaYq for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71BE11E8217 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:56:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: weirds@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131108155608.32462.31894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:56:08 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [weirds] Milestones changed for weirds WG X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Nov 2013 15:56:14 -0000 Changed milestone "draft-ietf-weirds-redirects to the IESG", set due date to January 2014 from November 2013. Changed milestone "draft-ietf-weirds-json-response to the IESG", set due date to January 2014 from November 2013. Changed milestone "draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query to the IESG", set due date to January 2014 from November 2013. Changed milestone "draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory to the IESG", set due date to January 2014 from October 2013. Changed milestone "Draft describing bootstrapping protocol to the IESG", set due date to February 2014 from November 2013. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charter/ From superuser@gmail.com Fri Nov 8 11:10:30 2013 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 CBD1F21F9D52 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:10:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 MJHTPG3IWkRU for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF4221E81C1 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k14so759579wgh.5 for ; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7EVadOhPTXAiOkxyLbTsVFAqb1s5RDTrDgMAN/qwAr4=; b=k/AJsqXiCyVRdtpeOK7218a6H+6608zIisq2suOrIwJsWClQVXajLNFLJCh7t7mStX tqLE7E+thd8RCiaAlwFoZ3mNhkBhNpq7F7eKEMlU4UvLQ2Jdf+7JQLiaXPGhMB67xhkK ns+PnXabRoD4jAXmMWJb9ngyqsr62SsELJUO5ebj/iiuT2G7oxFoszLlSMvbalRSvYVj 7GVZdMmV3pccdjkaH4R5vX/IASixBvgyaJ9pn6WdfqV5YDh9W5hi9i2BBsHoa2uvCcGZ HadkuaJKWpjdeqk/i8I+zoPEaNWo1pZa8dUN6ZKe9WFVVTJHcc2B/s/ir46QyffpoimP zHHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.188.164 with SMTP id gb4mr3533945wic.52.1383937590759; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25c9e7d194604eaaf147e Subject: [weirds] Some thoughts on bootstrapping 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, 08 Nov 2013 19:10:58 -0000 --001a11c25c9e7d194604eaaf147e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In various hallway track discussions since yesterday, it seems like there are several considerations relative to IANA with respect to a bootstrapping solution. Pete will be talking to the IAB as a liaison to ICANN/IANA to find out what would be possible in terms of an SLA to create a queryable registry for WEIRDS (and possibly other current WGs). There are also some policy and political issues around IANA running this registry in the first place, regardless of the SLA. We need to steer well clear of these as much as possible. In addition to the methods proposed by Marc, we could also consider the model the DNS follows with root caches. The root cache is a bootstrapping file for the DNS that indicates to a resolving nameserver where to go to start resolving a question for which the answer is not currently cached. So far as I'm aware, the documents defining the DNS don't talk about where to get the root cache; they only imply its existence. Where you get it and how is an implementation issue. I'm envisioning a table that maps name prefixes and CIDR expressions to one or more WEIRDS servers. For numbers, the list could simply map all numbers to all RIR WEIRDS servers, relying on redirection; just pick the closest one. For names, however, this is the public suffix problem again; ideally this would be maintained by some kind of authoritative registry, but it could also invoke one of the authority discovery methods that was discussed in Berlin at APPSAWG. We might consider "punting" in the same way. We could say a WEIRDS client needs to learn via some out-of-band method where to send the query for a given question. The methods Marc had in his presentation could be identified as experimental options. If one emerges as a clear winner in the future, that one could be written up in a Proposed Standard document, if that's even necessary. Comments? -MSK --001a11c25c9e7d194604eaaf147e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In various hallway track discussions since yesterday, it seems like there are several considerations relative to IANA with=20 respect to a bootstrapping solution.=A0 Pete will be talking to the IAB as a liaison to ICANN/IANA to find out what would be possible in terms of an = SLA to create a queryable registry for WEIRDS (and possibly=20 other current WGs).

There are also some policy and political issues around=20 IANA running this registry in the first place, regardless of the SLA.=A0=20 We need to steer well clear of these as much as possible.

In addition to the methods proposed by Marc, we could also consider the=20 model the DNS follows with root caches.=A0 The root cache is a=20 bootstrapping file for the DNS that indicates to a resolving nameserver=20 where to go to start resolving a question for which the answer is not=20 currently cached.=A0 So far as I'm aware, the documents defining the DN= S=20 don't talk about where to get the root cache; they only imply its=20 existence.=A0 Where you get it and how is an implementation issue.

I'm envisioning a table that maps name prefixes and CIDR=20 expressions to one or more WEIRDS servers.=A0 For numbers, the list could= =20 simply map all numbers to all RIR WEIRDS servers, relying on=20 redirection; just pick the closest one.=A0 For names, however, this is the public suffix problem again; ideally this would be maintained by some=20 kind of authoritative registry, but it could also invoke one of the=20 authority discovery methods that was discussed in Berlin at APPSAWG.

=A0

We might consider "punting" in the same way.= =A0 We could say a WEIRDS client needs to learn via some out-of-band method where to send the query for a given question.=A0 The methods Marc had in his=20 presentation could be identified as experimental options.=A0 If one emerges= as a=20 clear winner in the future, that one could be written up in a Proposed=20 Standard document, if that's even necessary.

Comments?

-MSK

--001a11c25c9e7d194604eaaf147e-- From prvs=0017f1c97c=johnl@iecc.com Fri Nov 8 12:52:33 2013 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 00FCF21E8089 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:52:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, 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 mqX8+4AIumAe for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:52:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7CE11E8210 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 31175 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2013 20:51:56 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2013 20:51:56 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=527d4eec.xn--btvx9d.k1310; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=SIjgJm9qBB157YChApRRre8R/8Zw/DnbMCZorbsUYmI=; b=Xp6Cjeh7IM2O5gEASQhXczp4ykexvJ32ZSSY0dVmiq9C1AogxXfIoqjvoZe3eSjgd5R73OewbmPFxJ/oheAmNwu6LIxIiEIp0X9WzlB0nrG4fbHY3RIu2kCao3yyPPIbkdeMxGerwrDwrEYmZ27Pxu4bpPbMesWUyaliHJx1qWORUaP0HaGRzXM1yDZUZwxi5Zkp2S4VtcXfCHx44XoaJHNKDhMzi2OtkJSKBsoAZshxNyoBVVovgjPOeMXvpMic DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=527d4eec.xn--btvx9d.k1310; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=SIjgJm9qBB157YChApRRre8R/8Zw/DnbMCZorbsUYmI=; b=dTw2btE0zb5q/RYhoK+zStSHQwlac5338x5zNyzrH6tqptTDsh41hQinLps4L+enm7HcKX3mZIWe9Q+ZB3K3QZ7CSjcc2WcQfCzPrV/65djCrXAWb4/EnkQBnfT/MuSv8T215BHjURkiJ2/cTk7cBg2mTjAXdjPzKr2FZfrQQj4LE78ZUnCr2pvpqNWRsM82xTHYYD/rIZ62UqWrbyIXf/WK9zgCjJhfEgiVzZ36A/sGtSyM8ZKAQzaGr6PqnlTI Date: 8 Nov 2013 20:51:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20131108205134.2932.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Some thoughts on bootstrapping 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, 08 Nov 2013 20:52:33 -0000 It might help to drain the swamp if we can figure out what (if anything) people agree about and what's still contentious. For example: * Do names and numbers need the same boostrap? If the answer is yes, what does "the same" mean here? * Do names need a bootstrap only for TLD? For TLD and subdomains identified by the TLD? For any domain? (As the registry for watkins-glen.ny.us, this is of some interest to me.) * Is it OK for a names bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA? * Is it OK for a numbers bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA? * How accurate does a numbers bootstrap need to be, e.g., for IPv4 is a 240 entry table for the top octet adequate, or does it have to be like the >100,000 entry table at NRO? From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Fri Nov 8 13:18:36 2013 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 E9C0B11E80EC for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:18:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 8ptDdOxpsuDi for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6BB21E808D for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:18:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: weirds@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131108211833.7020.24706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:18:33 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [weirds] Milestones changed for weirds WG X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Nov 2013 21:18:36 -0000 Changed milestone "Draft describing bootstrapping protocol to the IESG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charter/ From carlosm3011@gmail.com Fri Nov 8 19:22:11 2013 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 7F8CD11E8101 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:22:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 ex7DbfBdtvuC for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qe0-x236.google.com (mail-qe0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA0B11E80FB for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 1so2801642qec.27 for ; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:22:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3lRD/EHAgN6S1Y5mUzmygv0AjLEFgt4ZFP1fXO6Ef5w=; b=wfLc2jw466gSxNATyxN2V+0pvu1M6ZgvVQi25wwZMl5zwyGDQ2f7yd1XUb2CvrMjsL C+grLQgheE8ED2DdehNz+2N7T7Nvoq2R2OfQjWjwbtyLOreWeNKrrNfCim7gDHsCdB1e yph0chEHIYWeXqpnJRIZMPrR/qkHBQbXTQ4EMJevZgXTeGOYGWzpWTy0lmOZx4qDjNM8 Bo3L/FJz21C/VH8fkkTDM9tZ15ivJQQ0AsUEmt0WMSM1iZVHTwVxL3lgtVhsaHjRa7Zd gB4NTQYbQefgOD41cglBIYu/2iZGY8YKL7NpMREa2jEZk/x+cA42DSNDA/oeVhzSuHRF qHYg== X-Received: by 10.236.155.100 with SMTP id i64mr8691490yhk.42.1383967329286; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([2001:470:d815:fe0:1d61:a8ab:9141:416f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w8sm2954864yhg.8.2013.11.08.19.22.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:22:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <527DAA5B.2060000@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 01:22:03 -0200 From: "Carlos M. Martinez" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine , weirds@ietf.org References: <20131108205134.2932.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20131108205134.2932.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Some thoughts on bootstrapping X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: carlos@lacnic.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 03:22:11 -0000 Hello !! On 11/8/13, 6:51 PM, John Levine wrote: > It might help to drain the swamp if we can figure out what (if > anything) people agree about and what's still contentious. For > example: > > * Do names and numbers need the same boostrap? If the answer is yes, > what does "the same" mean here? Well, the source of bootstrapping data will be necessarily different, but IMO it would be a good idea if the _way_ bootstrap data is obtained by clients and servers is the 'same' for both names and numbers. There goes my definition of 'same' :-) By this I mean that if we settle on IANA, then both should use IANA, and if we settle on DNS/reverse DNS, well, both should use it. > > * Do names need a bootstrap only for TLD? For TLD and subdomains > identified by the TLD? For any domain? (As the registry for > watkins-glen.ny.us, this is of some interest to me.) Good question. IMO, a reasonable way of working this out would be to bootstrap names to the level of the TLD, and say numbers to the level of the /8s, or the IPv6 /12s (and those pesky /24s from times past). >From this high level down, you should follow a redirection tree. In our case (a RIR), at some point we should redirect RDAP queries to our NIRs, for example. > > * Is it OK for a names bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA? "N/A" > > * Is it OK for a numbers bootstrap to depend on something maintained by IANA? I dont' have a problem with it. But, what do we mean by 'depend' ? If we mean just storing some plain CSV/JSON bootstrap files, then, no problem at all. If we, on the other hand, believe that 'depend' implies operating an RDAP server and providing redirects from IANA downwards, then we should ask them if they believe they are able / willing to handle that kind of load. > > * How accurate does a numbers bootstrap need to be, e.g., for IPv4 is a > 240 entry table for the top octet adequate, or does it have to be like > the >100,000 entry table at NRO? For clients the 240-entry table is enough. The RIRs have the information to properly redirect from one to the other for those cases where a higher 'resolution' would be needed (for example, those cases where a single /16s out of a /8 is in use in another RIR). > > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Nov 11 05:04:25 2013 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 EC25221E80EC for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:04:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, 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 9K9Eb65mApTs for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB4321E81C4 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUoDV1A+s5kgDSLDv6d367rIV9BBVyAWT@postini.com; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:04:21 PST Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id rABD4JNm014892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:19 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:19 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: rdap-query Proposed Changes Discussed Last Week Thread-Index: Ac7e3oRM0eefmUx1ReCAOEwbs51/qQ== Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492D045C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] rdap-query Proposed Changes Discussed Last Week 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, 11 Nov 2013 13:04:26 -0000 During last week's working group meeting we talked through some very specif= ic questions concerning search and i18n. I think the feeling in the room wa= s that we could simplify things greatly by changing text in the rdap-query = draft to make it clear that search processing requires no more than basic b= inary character comparison. This has a potential impact on section 4 of rda= p-query-07, which currently includes this text: "Because Unicode characters may be combined with another Unicode character = or characters, partial matching requires that a server maintain a list of v= alid character combinations to be considered a match. When comparing DNS U-= labels, servers SHOULD use the code points specified in [RFC5892] to determ= ine partial matches. When comparing entity names, servers SHOULD use the n= ormalization rules and code points specified by [I-D.ietf-precis-nickname] = to determine partial matches." Marc Blanchet touched on the topic here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg03288.html I'm going to suggest that the paragraph above be replaced with this: "Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that contain ch= aracter strings encoded in different forms supported by HTTP. It is entirel= y possible to apply filters and normalization rules to search patterns prio= r to making character comparisons, but this type of processing is more typi= cally needed to determine the validity of registered strings than to match = patterns. Servers SHOULD thus accept any search pattern that is otherwise p= roperly encoded and servers SHOULD use case-insensitive binary comparisons = to determine partial matches." In addition, we have to make changes to our URIs based on the topic describ= ed here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg03285.html We'll see how that discussion goes before changing anything. Finally, we spent some time talking about how searches might uncover implic= it relationships between registered objects, such as the relationship betwe= en a registered IDN and its variants. I think we agreed that explicit searc= h results should be limited to matches, but RDAP includes the ability to de= scribe relationships and we talked about adding text to address that possib= ility. John Klensin drafted some text that can be added to the end of secti= on 4: "Conceptually, a name-record in the database may include a link to an assoc= iated name-record which may include a link to another such record and so on= . If an implementation is to return more than one name-record in response t= o a query, information from the records thereby identified is returned. =20 Note that this model includes any arrangements for associated names, includ= ing those that are linked by policy mechanisms and names bound together for= some other purposes. Note also that returning information that was not explicitly selected by an= exact-match lookup, including additional names that match a relatively fuz= zy search as well as lists of names that are linked together, may cause pri= vacy issues." The privacy topic will also need to be addressed in the Security Considerat= ions section. Scott From edainow@afilias.info Mon Nov 11 12:23:12 2013 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 530C111E80EC for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:23:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, J_CHICKENPOX_47=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 APAQxi6YJPeJ for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [66.199.183.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADE611E8102 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([10.109.8.9] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Vfy0o-0003x5-3h for weirds@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:23:06 +0000 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Vfy0n-0001jS-62 for weirds@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:23:06 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id to1so3261192ieb.29 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:23:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gCToChD2CVnzY/BlXym3BwzzvlZHplbYmGBb1c8jgr4=; b=hkoV8g7dso1Ys1jWtRrEQzs1hB+5gOwrVT6Cu0ehEXw3aM+BxEcXKyUivHQ3Z9vBq7 LsqDqusmUwoWVAdR0DFW8FMo6IWb4AHhHzLTXY5yCM2egcgzHldEng16RzPvy+6Xq1dh WBN6ndf9f9qvGI8sV17NOU7O18W667daJvbHjCzH17wgWvVkNPtRM2XpKAH+qlEijRTf iZuSMfFm169if69jLbz8TZruAe81gfWalh3mxEmTiyiUXXLrJXptOkhbUyrVVwlX/tNP Z4mOK4MfXpXqq0yRC7iLY2nPerhJeqMjrTkGj4wRg9ACFyhh0Xb15OA+Y0qI3n57+ErK +dHg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluor7SHHscpapalpZUNXVfov6JG4ZFG/Fq2xRwmaLVPrgVjl1Wn6RaLB//yfBmuCVvR7LhNAnFPGlACSxVldrHtH5DBOQwrSHwzDrpaMrrCiYPH9lY5OjjtzwFP6hOEIfraR4z X-Received: by 10.50.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr13598976igp.4.1384201380080; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:23:00 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr13598970igp.4.1384201379991; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.10.68.31] (tor-gateway.afilias.info. [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c14sm16972482ign.0.2013.11.11.12.22.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:22:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52813CA1.2000703@afilias.info> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:22:57 -0500 From: Ernie Dainow User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492CDB70@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <527C4ED8.3010601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <527C4ED8.3010601@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like 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, 11 Nov 2013 20:23:12 -0000 The main intent of RFC 5785 and draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00 seems to be registration of HTTP path prefixes "to avoid collisions and minimise impingement upon sites URI space." I don't see how this applies to the current definition in rdap-query-07, which clearly says, "uniform patterns start with a base URL [RFC3986] specified by each registry or any other service provider". The rest of the paths defined, such as domain/, follow the base path. This may change, if we decide to support a bootstrap based on DNS. Since DNS as proposed will only provide an IP address, a base path will be needed. In that case RFC 5785 would apply. However, if an IANA based bootstrap is decided, then part of the IANA record would be the base URL, as defined by the service provider. In my view this is preferable as it gives more control to the owner of the service. So this is an advantage of an IANA bootstrap over DNS. In any case, it seems like the bootstrap decision should be made before putting effort into defining ".well-known". -Ernie On 11/7/2013 9:39 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > +1 > > On 11/8/13, 12:34 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> The well-known URI space approach would be a simple change from what�s >> currently in the query draft. It seems like an easier path forward. >> >> >> >> Scott >> >> >> >> *From:*weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Murray S. Kucherawy >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:27 PM >> *To:* weirds@ietf.org >> *Subject:* [weirds] What templates and well-known would look like >> >> >> >> We talked today about using well-known URI space, and optionally >> templates as well. Here's my understanding of what they'd look like: >> >> For well-known, we would apply the procedure found in RFC5785 and >> register "rdap" with IANA. This means we effectively claim >> http:///.well-known/rdap >> as our own URI space, and would be free to define URI structure under >> there. This would basically add an IANA action to our query draft, and >> our URIs would now always contain ".well-known" followed by the name we >> register before the structure we define. >> >> For templates, we would do the above, and then declare that what's found >> at or under http:///.well-known/rdap >>