On 9 Jan 2012, at 20:55, Murray S. Kucherawy = wrote:

Hello all, Happy New Year and = such.

Given the Taipei = BoF, I think it=92s appropriate to update our requirements to match the = direction we seem to have now. So for the RIRs that have = implemented a RESTful WHOIS system, do you happen to have a requirements = document we could steal that might be a better starting point than the = one we have now?

-MSK
_____________________________________________= __
weirds mailing list
List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:30:52 -0000 --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Dear colleagues, I attach below a new proposed charter for a WG. I've attempted to reflect what we heard in Taipei: charter for numbers first, with names to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it. You may throw your tomatoes now. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wierds-charter-20120111a.txt" WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-01-11 Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick & Peter Saint-Andre Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both numbers and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some of the registry database. Most registries offer the service via WHOIS (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC 2622). While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them in respect both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. In particular, the number registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among clients and offer different information to different classes of user. Various attempts to solve limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more may be anticipated in response to the increased deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number registries. The Working Group shall undertake to determine the general needs of such a service, and to standardize a single data framework. The work shall primarily be undertaken with reference to number registries, because that is where the greatest evidence of progress is. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others: 1. Complete support for internationalization of queries and responses, including a standard representation for non-ASCII text in queries and responses, and ways to indicate language or character set preferences for responses. The Working Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is an appropriate selector. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model. 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user. The working group shall also develop a data profile using the framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit future development in other registries, including number registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name registries. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial work list for the working group shall not include work on name registry support, and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by the needs of name registries. However, when choosing between two otherwise-equivalent options, the working group shall prefer the one that is most amenable to re-use by name registries, and potential re-use by name registries will be a guiding principle of the work. Name registry support is explicitly part of the working group's scope, but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. Milestones [start + 2 months] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. [start + 6 months] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. [start + 8 months] Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f-- From sm@resistor.net Wed Jan 11 13:39:46 2012 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 D9FA211E80BB for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:39:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QfiYTjnnJFQZ for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:39:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9730511E8074 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:39:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0BLdUb2019798; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:39:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326317978; i=@resistor.net; bh=nUMHAI9preUZIJY/8evAie+3TV2toGgi23u8R9ByjJw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=XBbZVmtX1vA1XlV5JufcziSLDD+DofkcpICv3NJsYU3gzpEiBkyZDgw6mcrGDl2W+ ZGNTTDpsWHqRoNwMVNVjg0eiUOVJumMqDPwjvCu4RH9BD1TeySN+G5EzvtpjfJ0Axx JoBMKJ5r5XVFMv2Tko3iZYhNqO6CkU1ghNqM7k8E= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111132441.07840b30@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:35:01 -0800 To: Arturo Servin From: SM In-Reply-To: <811B4DA8-82F0-49F9-9CEF-E6D1999D7A2F@lacnic.net> References: <811B4DA8-82F0-49F9-9CEF-E6D1999D7A2F@lacnic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Update to requirements 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, 11 Jan 2012 21:39:46 -0000 Hi Arturo, At 13:13 11-01-2012, Arturo Servin wrote: >- Mimic the data model from the current whois This may be an issue as there isn't any documentation about this. The "elephant in the room" is the data. There are some RIR policies floating around. That could be used to get a sense of what the output will be. Speaking as an individual, do you think that the above approach may cause problems? I am not going to ask you for an explanation about why it may be a problem. Other people might ask. I doubt that I will be able to convince them that it would not be a good idea to do so. :-) Regards, -sm From aservin@lacnic.net Wed Jan 11 14:04:59 2012 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 3273821F84EB for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:04:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, 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 4TIiEtZmjfBM for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:04:58 -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 A283B21F84E2 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (r186-48-224-69.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.224.69]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A94308447; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:04:50 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111132441.07840b30@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:04:48 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A2DEA60-DBD1-47FA-8327-94D0E4AF698E@lacnic.net> References: <811B4DA8-82F0-49F9-9CEF-E6D1999D7A2F@lacnic.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111132441.07840b30@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Update to requirements 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, 11 Jan 2012 22:04:59 -0000 SM We are not changing the data, we are not adding or removing = fields, we are just changing the way we present it. I personally do not = think this could be a problem, we are not changing any policy here, we = are creating the technology to allow policy makers to build policies = that today are impossible to make. Regards, /as On 11 Jan 2012, at 19:35, SM wrote: > Hi Arturo, > At 13:13 11-01-2012, Arturo Servin wrote: >> - Mimic the data model from the current whois >=20 > This may be an issue as there isn't any documentation about this. The = "elephant in the room" is the data. There are some RIR policies = floating around. That could be used to get a sense of what the output = will be. >=20 > Speaking as an individual, do you think that the above approach may = cause problems? I am not going to ask you for an explanation about why = it may be a problem. Other people might ask. I doubt that I will be = able to convince them that it would not be a good idea to do so. :-) >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 From warren@kumari.net Wed Jan 11 14:46:47 2012 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 C673721F8759 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:46:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, 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 HEvxC-xflEXY for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AD221F8755 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:46:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-119-228.cbf.corp.google.com (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E19B51B40BCB; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:46:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:46:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8B04632F-4657-4B41-988B-C2A40A5B1226@kumari.net> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 11 Jan 2012 22:46:47 -0000 Hi. Tomatoes... There are lots of "Internet registries for both numbers and names" that = don't expose anything over WHOIS (like the IANA BGP Parameters registry, = the Arthritis Internet Registry, etc.) Obviously these are not the = registries you are referring to. Luckily you asked for tomatoes and not = suggested improvements because I don't know how to better word this. = Maybe "for AS numbers, addresses and domain names"?=20 O: permit public access to some of the registry database. P: permit public access to some portion of the registry database C: Readability (or "subset" or something). O: "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in = common, there are significant differences between them in respect both = of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models of the = respective communities." P: "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in = common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect = to what data they contain, and in the operating models of the = respective communities." C: The repeated reference to "some data" confused me. Actually I thought = there was a repeated phrase. O: "it cannot differentiate among clients and offer different = information to different classes of user" P: ??? C: The above could read that you want to return "Name: Fred Smith" to = one set of users and "Name: Billy Bob" to another. I don't have = suggested text, maybe something like "different levels of information" = or "additional information to different classes of users". Again, tomatoes! O: "Various attempts to solve limitations of WHOIS..." P: Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS..." or "Various = attempts to solve some of the limitations of WHOIS..." =20 C: Readability. O: "Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the = registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using = a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web." P: "Experimental services that use a RESTful approach to deliver = information traditionally offered via WHOIS over the web instead, have = been deployed by some registries." C: Or something. I find the original hard to parse. My proposed is not = much better though... O: "The Working Group shall undertake to determine the general needs of = such a service, and to standardize a single data framework." P: "The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a = service, and standardize a single data framework." C: Have a little faith :-) O: "In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over = others:" C: Over what others? Are these more important than interoperability? = Security? Deployability? (not saying that they aren't (or are), but the = sentence reads funny). O: "The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile" P: "The working group may develop a data profile" C: Maybe, no strong feelings here. O: "and development of the number registry support will not be = constrained by the needs of name registries."=20 P: "and development of the number registry support will not be = constrained needs specific to name registries.". C: A "need of name registries" is that the protocol be deployable. The = original reads that you won't be constrained by that :-P IAoP. W On Jan 11, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, >=20 > I attach below a new proposed charter for a WG. I've attempted to > reflect what we heard in Taipei: charter for numbers first, with names > to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it. You may > throw your tomatoes now. >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > = ____________________________________________= ___ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From sm@resistor.net Wed Jan 11 14:48:38 2012 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 B87EB21F8764 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 pOTxzbhMPKMa for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1904111E80C0 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0BMmTZ1028392; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326322115; i=@resistor.net; bh=9N/yxK96T0tPgZzjg6rt/9bUqyMYWADayZDV0HT7BLQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=PnNV/5XzxmHEbr0hWRbCgfZNtboVcF8SxF3CVH/gdmS7/hzJGBvbCFazxnhfOnWJ/ yHAsesDvYTZdpVdLar9Vg4rtpOi+qyYv5ATZEZzpW3/T96LuwPDyQsPl/mmMyNHz2Z ZGQmcDpI00m11zGMYl7nAhNF3rQe0yQhtDYoYOkw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111142121.07ecc4f8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:18 -0800 To: Arturo Servin From: SM In-Reply-To: <1A2DEA60-DBD1-47FA-8327-94D0E4AF698E@lacnic.net> References: <811B4DA8-82F0-49F9-9CEF-E6D1999D7A2F@lacnic.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111132441.07840b30@resistor.net> <1A2DEA60-DBD1-47FA-8327-94D0E4AF698E@lacnic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Update to requirements 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, 11 Jan 2012 22:48:38 -0000 Hi Arturo, At 14:04 11-01-2012, Arturo Servin wrote: > We are not changing the data, we are not adding or removing > fields, we are just changing the way we present it. I personally do > not think this could be a problem, we are not changing any policy > here, we are creating the technology to allow policy makers to > build policies that today are impossible to make. My comment was not about the above. :-) I have some understanding of the policy process. I was not talking about changing or discussing policy here. Regards, -sm From sm@resistor.net Wed Jan 11 15:34:01 2012 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 D73B621F85EE for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:34:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XMGANX4Gn50 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:34:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A624021F85D8 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:34:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0BNXq5C011084; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:33:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326324838; i=@resistor.net; bh=p5OWywFrBJvd1wfUGzXFiuMMY+5P50aoLqTkJFesxLE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=G4aT4x2yvPqjMvlbotCCSiM/+MuqwT+13sr5IUzSGHRsLZj7yLAUHoZex0l+Ctje1 0dl9o3Vt2QxJ7shUH1jViPWJomQQKYAT/KM+NMvR5WEAFzySVC4fe3ttyP2r5ULYvf cBE2dkBP1KS/cMis9cFjuBh2XHCsFViXGRbV6158= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:27:30 -0800 To: Andrew Sullivan From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 11 Jan 2012 23:34:01 -0000 Hi Andrew, At 13:30 11-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I attach below a new proposed charter for a WG. I've attempted to >reflect what we heard in Taipei: charter for numbers first, with names >to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it. You may >throw your tomatoes now. Thanks, I'll dispense with the platitudes then. :-) From the minutes of IETF 82: "There were expressions of support for starting with a smaller problem (just number registries) to begin with." I suggest removing the name registry stuff as it has nothing to do with the problem statement and there wasn't any decision to support them at the BoF. Suggested text: Internet registries for numbers resources have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some of the registry database. Most registries offer the service via WHOIS (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC 2622). I suggest removing the following paragraph as it is marketing: "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them in respect both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. In particular, the number registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries." Suggested change: Some Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. I suggest removing the following: "Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more may be anticipated in response to the increased deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number registries." Suggested change in a sentence: The work shall be undertaken with reference to number resources registries. I suggest removing: "The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries." as it has been stated that this work is for number resource registries only. I suggest removing: "The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit future development in other registries, including number registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name registries." Suggested text: The work list for the working group shall not include work on name registry support, and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by the needs of name registries. However, when choosing between two otherwise-equivalent options, the working group shall prefer the one that is most amenable to re-use by name registries, and potential re-use by name registries will be a guiding principle of the work. I don't see any mention of data models in the milestones. Regards, -sm From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 02:05:26 2012 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 0B06121F84E4 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:05:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6-q1Z7s9teBi for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2FF21F84E1 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CA4p9N027735 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:05:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326362717; i=@resistor.net; bh=28WazqyUsIBElQlOvraMXbtkvwWWPEIY3IVkqnIrmCk=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=s3qoNoXF8sptHc0fEwhQbl9popR3WstLpC3M6rwGAqu+sK1m8fNFX0NzMjQUovPKD ihWPULTwOf7OGlWztX03MvCnAdwyEFb1TfMonhQywGz8AIMa5qLSNytVuI9UHloFtA CYy4EaVkGKov99M9aQM/+WJaafyNeEBmknm0ULvU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112014720.0bfca148@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:00:56 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 10:05:26 -0000 Hello, In the proposed charter, there is the following requirement: "1. Complete support for internationalization of queries and responses, including a standard representation for non-ASCII text in queries and responses, and ways to indicate language or character set preferences for responses. The Working Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is an appropriate selector." The drafts which have been presented need more work in terms of internationalization. What expertise is desired for the proposed WG to deliver on the work items? Regards, -sm From aservin@lacnic.net Thu Jan 12 02:51:52 2012 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 DEE7321F84CE for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:51:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, 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 aa6X2ur+dCkj for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:51:52 -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 5C44021F84BF for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (r186-48-199-27.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.199.27]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08E3308455; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:51:44 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:51:43 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 10:51:53 -0000 On 11 Jan 2012, at 21:27, SM wrote: Hi, > Hi Andrew, > At 13:30 11-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> I attach below a new proposed charter for a WG. I've attempted to >> reflect what we heard in Taipei: charter for numbers first, with names >> to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it. You may >> throw your tomatoes now. > > I suggest removing the following paragraph as it is marketing: > > "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in > common, there are significant differences between them in respect > both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models > of the respective communities. In particular, the number > registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that > is common to many domain name registries." > I suggest to remove only part of the paragraph. Suggested: "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them in respect both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. " > > > I don't see any mention of data models in the milestones. > There is, isn't it? Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. Regards, /as From aservin@lacnic.net Thu Jan 12 03:15:40 2012 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 5732821F8518 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:15:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, 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 u5gQHRJV+9Fj for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:15:40 -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 C471121F8513 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:15:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (r186-48-199-27.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.199.27]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4558630843C; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:15:34 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <8B04632F-4657-4B41-988B-C2A40A5B1226@kumari.net> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:15:32 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <8B04632F-4657-4B41-988B-C2A40A5B1226@kumari.net> To: Warren Kumari X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 11:15:40 -0000 Hi, On 11 Jan 2012, at 20:46, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi. >=20 > Tomatoes... >=20 >=20 > O: "it cannot differentiate among clients and offer different = information to different classes of user" > P: ??? > C: The above could read that you want to return "Name: Fred Smith" to = one set of users and "Name: Billy Bob" to another. I don't have = suggested text, maybe something like "different levels of information" = or "additional information to different classes of users". > Again, tomatoes! >=20 I think the idea is that if you are an anonymous user you would = get: "Name: Fred Smith" But if you are law-enforcement agent or you sign an agreement = that you won't abuse the data you could get: "Name: Fred Smith email: fred@example.com" And if you also are not anonymous you could get more API calls = (i.e. rate-limit). May be: " WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate = among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow = different access rates to it". Regards, /as From alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at Thu Jan 12 03:25:25 2012 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 3783821F849D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:25:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 MOe8PMScQp2O for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508BF21F84B4 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-exch.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.3]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1/SSLv3:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.47 ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:22 +0100 Received: from nics-mail.sbg.nic.at (10.17.175.2) by NICS-EXCH.sbg.nic.at (10.17.175.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:20 +0100 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:21:51 +0100 Message-ID: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B476174@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczRG4peaYCuHVMgSLSdjL9HSfkUyQAAJQuw References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info><8B04632F-4657-4B41-988B-C2A40A5B1226@kumari.net> From: Alexander Mayrhofer To: Arturo Servin , Warren Kumari X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 11:25:25 -0000 > May be: > " WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate > among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow different > access rates to it". That's not completely right, since many name registries as of today employ measures that return less information to clients, or rate-limit clients according to their "class". Such differentiation is only possible by means of their client IP address, obviously - but that is what many registries have deployed as of today. Alex From aservin@lacnic.net Thu Jan 12 04:26:15 2012 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 9869E21F85E7 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:26:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 KPGtoulc5LHc for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:26:15 -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 1224821F84F3 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:26:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:88cf:181d:2e32:45eb] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:88cf:181d:2e32:45eb]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F33308462; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:26:12 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B476174@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:26:12 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info><8B04632F-4657-4B41-988B-C2A40A5B1226@kumari.net> <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B476174@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> To: Alexander Mayrhofer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 12:26:15 -0000 On 12 Jan 2012, at 09:21, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: >> May be: >> " WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot > differentiate >> among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow > different >> access rates to it". >=20 > That's not completely right, since many name registries as of today > employ measures that return less information to clients, or rate-limit > clients according to their "class". No numeric registries. Also RFC 3912 do not support it. Quote: "5. Security Considerations The WHOIS protocol has no provisions for strong security. WHOIS lacks mechanisms for access control, integrity, and confidentiality. Accordingly, WHOIS-based services should only be used for information which is non-sensitive and intended to be accessible to everyone. " > Such differentiation is only > possible by means of their client IP address, obviously - but that is > what many registries have deployed as of today. >=20 > Alex With restful services we could use certificates or user-ids = (similar to other webservices, i.e. google, yahoo) to authenticate the = user. Regards, as =09 From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Jan 12 08:00:41 2012 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 8A25F21F85E6 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:00:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, 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 6UxNn+oBBEL3 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF04021F84F2 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:00:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6506F1ECB41D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:00:38 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 16:00:41 -0000 Hi, Thanks for your comments. I'm responding particularly to this one, because I am uncomfortable with the suggestion. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 03:27:30PM -0800, SM wrote: > From the minutes of IETF 82: > > "There were expressions of support for starting with a smaller problem > (just number registries) to begin with." > > I suggest removing the name registry stuff as it has nothing to do > with the problem statement and there wasn't any decision to support > them at the BoF. There wasn't any decsision _not_ to support them, either. I think you're quoting selectively. Immediately after what you quoted, the minutes say, "There were expressions of support for avoiding making incompatible systems for name registries, but no commitment to solve the name registry issues at the same time." Also, we have this: Is there a problem to be solved - for number registries? There was a loud hum 'yes', and none for 'no'. - for domain name registries? There was a loud hum 'yes' and some for 'no'. My impression at the BoF was that people thought there to be a problem for name registries, but some people expressed very strong scepticism that the problem could be solved before heat death of the universe. It isn't unreasonable, however, to note that one of the sceptics has expressed on numerous occasions, both within and without the IETF context, a pervasive scepticism about anything that is even remotely to do with ICANN, and some of the other sceptics were less strident about this topic. I am very strongly opposed to the idea that we would charter this work without mentioning name registries at all. I think it would be a mistake to chater this work without allowing for the possibility that name registries be in-scope, if it turns out that the name registries show up to participate and appear to have some deployment momentum. I get the very strong arguments about ICANN's historical performance in addressing problems with WHOIS; but if people do show up and decide they want to do the work (regardless of what ICANN decides to do in the long run), I think it would waste a lot of time and effort in rechartering at that point. Why do you want to exclude name registries from the problem scope, when the proposal is that we won't do any work on those problems to begin with? Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 08:31:46 2012 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 74C2421F8503 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:31:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 Z20icgRK9WR8 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:31:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1AB21F8508 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:31:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CGVaLM003882; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:31:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326385903; i=@resistor.net; bh=DykSfBUGNAPoGSZKwxB7C4s2KnlxnD1nQ2/s1397G6c=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=m1uxNDM7Z+VeHtzrHJLc1SieSO1lobzAHEAJoHKnZZ2UdX75gnrU66K0JM8w4SopN wABH1msZZVcP9qaXwA/Z8qjGaHbFoRs0MljJGV4mx2lKgYi0OSN/Sm7aTTYwsmBuVN qWEnqZUM7ayaRUWEF68WMbsrEnjHrSAaeYhO1AE8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112081306.0abdfe68@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:20:56 -0800 To: Arturo Servin From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 16:31:46 -0000 Hi Arturo, At 02:51 12-01-2012, Arturo Servin wrote: >There is, isn't it? > > Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number > registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. Ah, I see. As a nit, replace "registries" with "resources". Regards, -sm From aservin@lacnic.net Thu Jan 12 08:36:11 2012 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 5E5BA21F8528 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:36:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 edHudlqbTAnU for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:36:11 -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 CFCEC21F8526 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:88cf:181d:2e32:45eb] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:88cf:181d:2e32:45eb]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756E130844C; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:35:58 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112081306.0abdfe68@resistor.net> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:35:58 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8152A1B0-655B-4B39-864D-50E4749761B6@lacnic.net> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112081306.0abdfe68@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 16:36:11 -0000 =09 I would prefer "number resources" or "numeric resources". I do = not which one is better in English. Cheers, -as On 12 Jan 2012, at 14:20, SM wrote: > Hi Arturo, > At 02:51 12-01-2012, Arturo Servin wrote: >> There is, isn't it? >>=20 >> Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number >> registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. >=20 > Ah, I see. As a nit, replace "registries" with "resources". >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 09:31:38 2012 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 4492021F85D3 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZmI29ue-zTXO for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED6821F85D2 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CHVVlS021073; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326389496; i=@resistor.net; bh=P3kWB2/dAjjAKSDxTlxqgkB7ZaaEd7XMGsLBQaghTtI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=ZDxfGWgGWeqqhfAHUtNox67N9zgtcQHjsrsRpfjlQjJV98jXdPpsz4oA+drMbLMYF MMVf8oqugK3tHiJBkKsKLXKukBI+zq+WxMTPaXr4BV+dSjKN33eVXuFvvCeOxewtDq wFAqfWks6jDSqeSfg2ICTa1rYEpn/4Po/62iikkc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084322.08ef1890@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:44:56 -0800 To: Arturo Servin From: SM In-Reply-To: <8152A1B0-655B-4B39-864D-50E4749761B6@lacnic.net> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112081306.0abdfe68@resistor.net> <8152A1B0-655B-4B39-864D-50E4749761B6@lacnic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 17:31:38 -0000 Hi Arturo, At 08:35 12-01-2012, Arturo Servin wrote: > I would prefer "number resources" or "numeric resources". I > do not which one is better in English. The English term used used by RIRs is "number resources". Regards, -sm From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 09:53:05 2012 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 9B8E421F8542 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 iF2P7-bbO9uF for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6363521F853B for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CHqnFC026102; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326390777; i=@resistor.net; bh=V5OWZk6LfnYg6GICh9+cOJejs+ZHDbL7x7XoiIJ+3wI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=C72hGFpO5/CzpsKxezpVGTvR5PCW8Z+XArn7w1QiL43w/YWWgabBv7TY4eX/b/0fs cp4pbX63woleu09C3wHqp7hU8YR0eD4FT4fQ/ULO0LNh7iJaUOoAMDIFvSmn0LbfVY xUGg3GCWnttGQ11vNP/ZorDfAnOPdxyB7/L+nyT0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:50:57 -0800 To: Andrew Sullivan From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 17:53:05 -0000 Hi Andrew, At 08:00 12-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >There wasn't any decsision _not_ to support them, either. I think >you're quoting selectively. Immediately after what you quoted, the I usually trim content. It might be viewed as selective quoting, misrepresenting the facts, etc. I could say that it is not the intent but then you would have to take my word for it. :-) Although I have not disclosed my affiliation and interests on this mailing list, I gather that the usual participants are aware of these facts. >minutes say, "There were expressions of support for avoiding making >incompatible systems for name registries, but no commitment to solve >the name registry issues at the same time." Also, we have this: > > Is there a problem to be solved > - for number registries? > There was a loud hum 'yes', and none for 'no'. > > - for domain name registries? > There was a loud hum 'yes' and some for 'no'. > >My impression at the BoF was that people thought there to be a problem >for name registries, but some people expressed very strong scepticism >that the problem could be solved before heat death of the universe. >It isn't unreasonable, however, to note that one of the sceptics has >expressed on numerous occasions, both within and without the IETF >context, a pervasive scepticism about anything that is even remotely >to do with ICANN, and some of the other sceptics were less strident >about this topic. There is a problem for name registries. I am aware of the views of one of the sceptics. :-) There is some very strong scepticism due to ICANN politics. As a tomato, I'd say that if domain name registries or ICANN do not express the wish to solve a problem, it is not up to this group to work on it. >I am very strongly opposed to the idea that we would charter this work >without mentioning name registries at all. I think it would be a >mistake to chater this work without allowing for the possibility that >name registries be in-scope, if it turns out that the name registries >show up to participate and appear to have some deployment momentum. I >get the very strong arguments about ICANN's historical performance in >addressing problems with WHOIS; but if people do show up and decide >they want to do the work (regardless of what ICANN decides to do in >the long run), I think it would waste a lot of time and effort in >rechartering at that point. The group has the ability to re-charter. Compared to the amount of time and effort wasted on this topic, a re-charter effort is a drop in the ocean. If the name registries want to show up, now is the time to do so. >Why do you want to exclude name registries from the problem scope, >when the proposal is that we won't do any work on those problems to >begin with? It is better to identify what problem the group will solve and explain how it will solve it. As some of the RIRs have expressed their interest in implementing the deliverables, number registries are in scope. They will obviously have to participate in the work as that is how the IETF works. Regards, -sm From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Jan 12 10:33:53 2012 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 A70DF21F8552 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:33:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.673 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, 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 p9zGqcy6YNwG for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8DF21F8546 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:33:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E25B01ECB41D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:33:52 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:53 -0000 On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 09:50:57AM -0800, SM wrote: > Hi Andrew, > At 08:00 12-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >There wasn't any decsision _not_ to support them, either. I think > >you're quoting selectively. Immediately after what you quoted, the > > I usually trim content. It might be viewed as selective quoting, > misrepresenting the facts, etc. I'm not suggesting you're misrepresenting anything, but you can't leave out a relevant bit of text and then use the part you quoted as sole evidence in your argument. My reading of the minutes (and my review of the audio recording) suggests to me that there was agreement that name registries were part of the problem we were confronting, but that we didn't know what to do about it. That's not the same thing as "we won't do anything." > As a tomato, I'd say that if domain name registries or ICANN do not > express the wish to solve a problem, it is not up to this group to > work on it. But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts too. That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that there are more RIRs than name registries > The group has the ability to re-charter. Compared to the amount of > time and effort wasted on this topic, a re-charter effort is a drop > in the ocean. If the name registries want to show up, now is the > time to do so. I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time and effort is. Perhaps you can clarify? But in any case, I don't agree that a re-charter is trivial, because if we have to have the debate (with the rest of the IETF) about what to do with name registries while we already have other deliverables, then the amount of time available to focus on those deliverables is reduced. If we start out saying, "Name registries are in scope, but we want to focus on number registries first," then when we go to the rest of the IETF later with name-registry-appropriate things we won't be surprising anyone. If we go later with a recharter, the natural question will be, "If you were going to work on name registries, why didn't you say so in the first place?" Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 11:26:54 2012 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 DF1F021F8608 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3pFbfqJTart for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BE821F85A8 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CJQgwA013135; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326396408; i=@resistor.net; bh=oWbLW9fRx4UwNsB6T/m31/XKHWUnIAHY1HDqIAj+QiI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=cZiSRPrRDIqXSNcK5AINrQyQZeWwyUApVJ4BSmbksfffqVzN4z/WG2CEBcRbNvk0A 57MvEQeeyN1/me06RvQyadLsYlz6xSGpkvM22ktDAJJrF34lPFI/yYvLbb7Lp1bTVX iyPCoN+HoXrO7YNdFyegV9E2oSSvOOwfjiiYJMZk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:17 -0800 To: Andrew Sullivan From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 19:26:55 -0000 Hi Andrew, At 10:33 12-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I'm not suggesting you're misrepresenting anything, but you can't I did not read it as such a suggestion. >leave out a relevant bit of text and then use the part you quoted as >sole evidence in your argument. My reading of the minutes (and my >review of the audio recording) suggests to me that there was agreement >that name registries were part of the problem we were confronting, but >that we didn't know what to do about it. That's not the same thing as >"we won't do anything." I'll be candid. It is not my responsibility to explain to anyone how to find information or where to find information or any IETF stuff. If anyone think that I left out anything relevant, it is up to the persons to do whatever they consider appropriate. To spell it out, if "you" (and I do not mean you, Andrew) are lazy, it is not my problem. Decisions cannot be taken during a WG session. I didn't even nit about that. If "we didn't know what to do about it", we talk about it and see whether we can know what to do about it. >But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a >draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had Actually no. The path forward is to ask whether there is consensus on using draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 as input. >an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the >record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts >too. That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that >there are more RIRs than name registries That's not in the minutes. :-) However, I would not use that in an objection. >I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time >and effort is. Perhaps you can clarify? But in any case, I don't The usual "string" discussions. >agree that a re-charter is trivial, because if we have to have the >debate (with the rest of the IETF) about what to do with name >registries while we already have other deliverables, then the amount >of time available to focus on those deliverables is reduced. If we >start out saying, "Name registries are in scope, but we want to focus >on number registries first," then when we go to the rest of the IETF >later with name-registry-appropriate things we won't be surprising >anyone. If we go later with a recharter, the natural question will >be, "If you were going to work on name registries, why didn't you say >so in the first place?" ICANN and .mx are not enough to make things happen. What I am saying is that name registries is out-of-scope and there is a train leaving soon. I don't know if there will be a next train and when it it will be scheduled. As mentioned above, the rest of the IETF might not be happy about having the debate twice. You might be asked why you did not take the first train. Regards, -sm From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Jan 12 12:27:02 2012 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 6803111E8083 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:27:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, 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 cnW-SRw7MKnW for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CAC11E8072 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F2B01ECB41D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:26:58 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 20:27:02 -0000 On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:26:17AM -0800, SM wrote: > >But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a > >draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had > > Actually no. The path forward is to ask whether there is consensus > on using draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 as input. Since we don't have a WG, I have no idea who'd be in a position to determine consensus. Perhaps the ADs. I offered text for a possible WG charter that more or less assumed we would use all the drafts that have been submitted as input. As near as I can tell, you're arguing that we should not, unless I misunderstand you. > >an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the > >record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts > >too. That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that > >there are more RIRs than name registries > > That's not in the minutes. :-) However, I would not use that in an objection. A large number of specific statements are not in the minutes, because guidelines for minutes suggest that one should not have complete narrative minutes. Besides, there's a complete recording available. > >I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time > >and effort is. > > The usual "string" discussions. I don't see what the waste is, then. The central questions, to my mind, are these: 1. Do we need to charter a WG? 2. Does that WG cover number resources? 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the argument neds something more, I think, than abusing the name resources question ("a waste of time and effort"). We have people who want to work on it, we have an acknowledged limitations about a problem statement, and we have some similarities with the work that others want to do. That is usually the state of affairs where we want to ensure one gets one interoperable protocol rather than two, or at least where one wants to see whether that is possible. The text I proposed accommodates that while stating that we know what the starting point is, because we have more fielded PoC systems. > saying is that name registries is out-of-scope and there is a train > leaving soon. I don't know if there will be a next train and when > it it will be scheduled. As mentioned above, the rest of the IETF > might not be happy about having the debate twice. You might be > asked why you did not take the first train. What train is leaving soon? If your intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are going to go ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as someone said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can get in a room and agree amongst themselves. I think that would be a shame, because I think the protocol would benefit from the sort of review one gets at the IETF; but if the suggestion is, "Do this on our schedule, or we'll go away and do what we want," then my suggestion is indeed to go away and do what you want. People who come to the IETF with tight deadlines are inevitably disappointed. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From michael@mwyoung.ca Thu Jan 12 12:50:56 2012 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 5A88D21F861A for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:50:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWC3LdYIRTIu for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A8111E8083 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsf15 with SMTP id f15so1482074qcs.31 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.205.134 with SMTP id fq6mr7626082qab.99.1326401454572; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.111] (host-sk220.res.openband.net. [209.0.142.220]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q14sm12084021qap.4.2012.01.12.12.50.52 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:50:53 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:50:50 -0500 From: MICHAEL YOUNG To: Andrew Sullivan , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 20:50:56 -0000 Andrew maybe I can help here, Architelos has a number of registry and registrar customers, I will volunteer to review and contribute to this effort and interface with our customers while I do. This should increase the feedback on the registry side. Forking Whois between RIRs and Name Registries doesn't make sense to me. Best Regards, Michael Young M:647-289-1220 On 12-01-12 3:26 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:26:17AM -0800, SM wrote: >> >But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a >> >draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had >> >> Actually no. The path forward is to ask whether there is consensus >> on using draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 as input. > >Since we don't have a WG, I have no idea who'd be in a position to >determine consensus. Perhaps the ADs. I offered text for a possible >WG charter that more or less assumed we would use all the drafts that >have been submitted as input. As near as I can tell, you're arguing >that we should not, unless I misunderstand you. > >> >an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the >> >record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts >> >too. That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that >> >there are more RIRs than name registries >> >> That's not in the minutes. :-) However, I would not use that in an >>objection. > >A large number of specific statements are not in the minutes, because >guidelines for minutes suggest that one should not have complete >narrative minutes. Besides, there's a complete recording available. > >> >I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time >> >and effort is. >> >> The usual "string" discussions. > >I don't see what the waste is, then. The central questions, to my >mind, are these: > > 1. Do we need to charter a WG? > > 2. Does that WG cover number resources? > > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? > >It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the >argument neds something more, I think, than abusing the name resources >question ("a waste of time and effort"). We have people who want to >work on it, we have an acknowledged limitations about a problem >statement, and we have some similarities with the work that others >want to do. That is usually the state of affairs where we want to >ensure one gets one interoperable protocol rather than two, or at >least where one wants to see whether that is possible. The text I >proposed accommodates that while stating that we know what the >starting point is, because we have more fielded PoC systems. > >> saying is that name registries is out-of-scope and there is a train >> leaving soon. I don't know if there will be a next train and when >> it it will be scheduled. As mentioned above, the rest of the IETF >> might not be happy about having the debate twice. You might be >> asked why you did not take the first train. > >What train is leaving soon? > >If your intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are >going to go ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as >someone said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can >get in a room and agree amongst themselves. I think that would be a >shame, because I think the protocol would benefit from the sort of >review one gets at the IETF; but if the suggestion is, "Do this on our >schedule, or we'll go away and do what we want," then my suggestion is >indeed to go away and do what you want. People who come to the IETF >with tight deadlines are inevitably disappointed. > >Best regards, > >A > >-- >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@arin.net Thu Jan 12 13:08:49 2012 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 C3DBE11E8096 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:08:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YW+P+FhRB9m1 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:08:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C3611E8091 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:08:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id D3DA821364E; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C692135F0; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:08:32 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:08:47 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: Andrew Sullivan Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHM0KhNSB2Aog3+R0evkH5VNUVJcZYII60AgAEVegCAAB7TgIAAC/4AgAAOpYCAABD0AIAAC64A Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:08:47 +0000 Message-ID: <444F2F84-BF65-45DF-9128-1F1F132547F0@arin.net> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.0.203] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <083A4EDEEA602C4DBB17E0EF375C8227@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 21:08:49 -0000 On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >=20 > It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the > argument neds something more, I think, than abusing the name resources > question ("a waste of time and effort"). +1 -andy From aservin@lacnic.net Thu Jan 12 13:16:26 2012 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 2AF3221F86DF for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:16:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, 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 9jLzq2zhyTfg for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:16:25 -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 8CF181F0C3F for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (r186-48-219-203.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.219.203]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CAB308458; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:16:21 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7BB71BD6-7AA0-40C4-AEB8-D5CBC1C9ECDF" From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:16:20 -0200 Message-Id: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 21:16:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7BB71BD6-7AA0-40C4-AEB8-D5CBC1C9ECDF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I cannot speak for others, but I do not want to go ahead without = IETF. I guess the feeling is the same for others. Regards, as On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > If your intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are > going to go ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as > someone said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can > get in a room and agree amongst themselves. --Apple-Mail=_7BB71BD6-7AA0-40C4-AEB8-D5CBC1C9ECDF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I cannot speak for others, but I = do not want to go ahead without IETF. I guess the feeling is the same = for = others.

Regards,
as

= On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

If your = intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are
going to go = ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as
someone = said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can
get in a = room and agree amongst = themselves.

= --Apple-Mail=_7BB71BD6-7AA0-40C4-AEB8-D5CBC1C9ECDF-- From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 13:37:44 2012 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 4DD6221F855D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 hL5kStIIZoMq for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B1931F0C3F for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CLbOXL021417; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326404254; i=@resistor.net; bh=HCAgb5zPlKP3ivM3Gna/U4ZsXniI/iUUL0sap6+U2Lo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=C39j9AZ84HsT9UVdH0qHLf23YUp4gIXt4iH8TCGMiYUJZC6nmNH7aOlq59naXpOYX JGGFz/0aPyS9bK10F3aHLUdWFzmn6HQx0XOeBpfN1jno3nnEjSQiAt4oUINLCkvPhy 5JfvswnglR7kKapcUlHvNSgHaIVaIodo4aAq758c= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112124009.098465d0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:05 -0800 To: Andrew Sullivan From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 21:37:44 -0000 Hi Andrew, At 12:26 12-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >Since we don't have a WG, I have no idea who'd be in a position to >determine consensus. Perhaps the ADs. I offered text for a possible >WG charter that more or less assumed we would use all the drafts that >have been submitted as input. As near as I can tell, you're arguing >that we should not, unless I misunderstand you. It doesn't really matter to me who determines consensus. If anyone believes that it is important to follow process to the letter, I can make a suggestion. I am arguing for no undertaking to solve name registries problems. I mentioned the draft as part of a path forward. I provided suggestions about the proposed charter that was sent to this list. FWIW, I am looking at the drafts more in terms of what they have in common. And that is to work on a protocol for the number resources problem. If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and that input should go into the deliverables. Is there anyone from ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this? >A large number of specific statements are not in the minutes, because >guidelines for minutes suggest that one should not have complete >narrative minutes. Besides, there's a complete recording available. Ok. It's not constructive for me to argue about this. > > >I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time > > >and effort is. > > > > The usual "string" discussions. > >I don't see what the waste is, then. The central questions, to my >mind, are these: > > 1. Do we need to charter a WG? > > 2. Does that WG cover number resources? > > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? > >It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the >argument neds something more, I think, than abusing the name resources >question ("a waste of time and effort"). We have people who want to >work on it, we have an acknowledged limitations about a problem >statement, and we have some similarities with the work that others >want to do. That is usually the state of affairs where we want to >ensure one gets one interoperable protocol rather than two, or at >least where one wants to see whether that is possible. The text I >proposed accommodates that while stating that we know what the >starting point is, because we have more fielded PoC systems. If I understood correctly, the above means that the group tries to solve a problem (domain name resources) without explicitly saying so? As for the technical similarities to the work, I'll keep it simple. Is there anyone from .com, for example, who can provide input? >What train is leaving soon? The charter. >If your intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are >going to go ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as >someone said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can >get in a room and agree amongst themselves. I think that would be a >shame, because I think the protocol would benefit from the sort of >review one gets at the IETF; but if the suggestion is, "Do this on our >schedule, or we'll go away and do what we want," then my suggestion is >indeed to go away and do what you want. People who come to the IETF >with tight deadlines are inevitably disappointed. I did suggest that they get in a room and produce an RFC. As none of the RIRs supported that alternative, I take it that it is not an appropriate alternative to them. I am not suggesting that the number resources registries go ahead without the IETF. However, if that is an alternative they are considering, it would be good if they say so on this mailing list as it would save people with an interest in the IETF work some time. The sort of review one gets at the IETF is not free even if the IETF people work for free. It is up to the parties involved to see whether they would benefit by doing this work within the IETF. I did not suggest any tight deadlines. If this group would like more time to "think about it", it would help if someone said so. There isn't a deadline to charter a working group. I am not saying not to move ahead with the charter. Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jan 12 14:22:33 2012 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 D6DD011E8095 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 QYLRXJ90EPLn for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617D911E8073 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:25 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:32 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:32 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczQuYGkbnaT7OBpQ0KzK8xoSTUkawAvm0bA Message-ID: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 22:22:34 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:28 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 > From the minutes of IETF 82: >=20 > "There were expressions of support for starting with a smaller problem > (just number registries) to begin with." >=20 > I suggest removing the name registry stuff as it has nothing to do with > the problem statement and there wasn't any decision to support them at > the BoF. I think it would be fine for the charter to indicate that name registries a= re out of scope for this run. I also think it would be fine to acknowledge= that we'd really like to do that later, and the success of this first run = will inform our decision about continuing into that space later. > I suggest removing the following paragraph as it is marketing: >=20 > "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in > common, there are significant differences between them in respect > both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models > of the respective communities. In particular, the number > registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that > is common to many domain name registries." I don't agree that it's "marketing", but I don't think the charter would be= harmed by its removal. > Suggested change: >=20 > Some Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have deployed experimental > services that provide the registration information services > traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to > data delivery over the web. That seems fine. > I suggest removing: >=20 > "The data profile shall provide the necessary support > for operation of number registries." >=20 > as it has been stated that this work is for number resource registries > only. I don't think that redundancy is harmful. > I suggest removing: >=20 > "The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to > permit future development in other registries, including number > registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name > registries." >=20 > Suggested text: >=20 > The work list for the working group shall not include work on > name registry support, and development of the number registry > support will not be constrained by the needs of name registries. > However, when choosing between two otherwise-equivalent options, > the working group shall prefer the one that is most amenable to > re-use by name registries, and potential re-use by name registries > will be a guiding principle of the work. I prefer the former text. I think they basically say the same thing, but t= he former is more concise. > I don't see any mention of data models in the milestones. Good point. -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jan 12 14:28:57 2012 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 F142121F8633 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 7yD-T+zzAefa for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9157E21F8624 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:49 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:56 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:55 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczRQ1c8NJT1Zxh9TFGjS6McZXM/zAANcIOg Message-ID: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 22:28:58 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:01 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 > My impression at the BoF was that people thought there to be a problem > for name registries, but some people expressed very strong scepticism > that the problem could be solved before heat death of the universe. > It isn't unreasonable, however, to note that one of the sceptics has > expressed on numerous occasions, both within and without the IETF > context, a pervasive scepticism about anything that is even remotely to > do with ICANN, and some of the other sceptics were less strident about > this topic. > [...] +1 to all of this message. As the one beating the drum for clients that re= ally want this information and are willing to apply pressure to get it from= more than just the IETF side of things, I think a charter from which one c= an infer that we are not at all interested in name registry work does us a = disservice. If, after the number registry part of this is done, we feel it's not likely= to be worth our time to go down the path of extending the work to the name= arena because of unlikely adoption, we can make that decision then. But I= 'm opposed to proscribing it up front, explicitly or implicitly. -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jan 12 14:31:20 2012 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 C4D2911E80AA for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 fhUfwa+NUoSX for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6680A11E80A6 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:12 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:20 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:19 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczRUwsIROAP4aqIRbG6ulZzckNNkwAJreLQ Message-ID: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 22:31:20 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:51 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 > The group has the ability to re-charter. Compared to the amount of > time and effort wasted on this topic, a re-charter effort is a drop in > the ocean. If the name registries want to show up, now is the time to > do so. This seems to preclude the idea that the name registries see how this works= once it's done, like it enough to give it a try, and then come to the tabl= e. I think we should leave that open as a future possibility rather than s= aying "now or never" when all of the evidence is stacked toward "never" rig= ht now. From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jan 12 14:41:03 2012 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 E924211E8095 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, 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 dFaG2JQ8476r for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DF111E8073 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:40:55 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:03 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:01 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczRcm1fepVST/8tRpyKMazbWFnDjAACEPgA Message-ID: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112124009.098465d0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112124009.098465d0@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 22:41:04 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:37 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 > I am arguing for no undertaking to solve name registries problems. I think that's fine for the first run, but I don't agree that we should say= no consideration should be given to name issues while solving number issue= s. It sounds like you're pushing very hard in that direction, and I think = that would limit the development of some very useful work later. This woul= d be very unfortunate. > >What train is leaving soon? >=20 > The charter. There's no deadline of which I am aware. Only a desire for progress toward= consensus. > I did suggest that they get in a room and produce an RFC. As none of > the RIRs supported that alternative, I take it that it is not an > appropriate alternative to them. I am not suggesting that the number > resources registries go ahead without the IETF. However, if that is an > alternative they are considering, it would be good if they say so on > this mailing list as it would save people with an interest in the IETF > work some time. Several RIRs were in the room in Taipei. I infer from this that they do wa= nt an RFC and are willing to help with it and want to include others in tha= t process. And I think they make a fine example for the name registries, e= ven though one could argue that they have totally different motivations. A= nd I hope it works out that way one day. -MSK From warren@kumari.net Thu Jan 12 15:04:24 2012 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 0B43021F86B4 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:04:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, 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 TwBqOLCIgkLu for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1287C21F86AF for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:04:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-119-228.cbf.corp.google.com (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7F8A1B405C3; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:04:21 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:04:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4DF77719-67F1-49C4-947C-626FCBC29CE7@kumari.net> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 23:04:24 -0000 On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:26:17AM -0800, SM wrote: >>> But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a >>> draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had >>=20 >> Actually no. The path forward is to ask whether there is consensus >> on using draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 as input. >=20 > Since we don't have a WG, I have no idea who'd be in a position to > determine consensus. Perhaps the ADs. I offered text for a possible > WG charter that more or less assumed we would use all the drafts that > have been submitted as input. As near as I can tell, you're arguing > that we should not, unless I misunderstand you. >=20 >>> an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the >>> record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts >>> too. That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that >>> there are more RIRs than name registries >>=20 >> That's not in the minutes. :-) However, I would not use that in an = objection. >=20 > A large number of specific statements are not in the minutes, because > guidelines for minutes suggest that one should not have complete > narrative minutes. Besides, there's a complete recording available. >=20 >>> I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time >>> and effort is. >>=20 >> The usual "string" discussions. >=20 > I don't see what the waste is, then. The central questions, to my > mind, are these: Great, nice and simple. My answers: >=20 > 1. Do we need to charter a WG? Yes. >=20 > 2. Does that WG cover number resources? Yes. >=20 > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? >=20 Yes. Maybe not initially, but I'd like to be able to discuss working on = them without a(nother) chartering fight. > It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the > argument neds something more, I think, than abusing the name resources > question ("a waste of time and effort"). We have people who want to > work on it, Hello! I personally find the name resource problem more interesting than = numbers, and applicable to a larger groups of folk. Yes, there is some history / politics here, but... > we have an acknowledged limitations about a problem > statement, and we have some similarities with the work that others > want to do. That is usually the state of affairs where we want to > ensure one gets one interoperable protocol rather than two, or at > least where one wants to see whether that is possible. The text I > proposed accommodates that while stating that we know what the > starting point is, because we have more fielded PoC systems. >=20 >> saying is that name registries is out-of-scope and there is a train >> leaving soon. I don't know if there will be a next train and when >> it it will be scheduled. As mentioned above, the rest of the IETF >> might not be happy about having the debate twice. You might be >> asked why you did not take the first train. >=20 > What train is leaving soon? >=20 > If your intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are > going to go ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as > someone said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can > get in a room and agree amongst themselves. I think that would be a > shame, because I think the protocol would benefit from the sort of > review one gets at the IETF; but if the suggestion is, "Do this on our > schedule, or we'll go away and do what we want," then my suggestion is > indeed to go away and do what you want. People who come to the IETF > with tight deadlines are inevitably disappointed. Actually I'd strike "with tight deadlines" from the above, but only = because I'm having a rough day ;-) W >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From warren@kumari.net Thu Jan 12 15:20:12 2012 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 93CAE21F84D7 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:20:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, 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 bNbcPsBOPICD for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:20:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC17421F84D6 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:20:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-119-228.cbf.corp.google.com (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD1E11B4153B; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:20:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:20:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <690CABBD-1FF4-4DAB-91A9-58F86D816EA4@kumari.net> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112124009.098465d0@resistor.net> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 12 Jan 2012 23:20:12 -0000 On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of SM >> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:37 PM >> To: Andrew Sullivan >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >>=20 >> I am arguing for no undertaking to solve name registries problems. >=20 > I think that's fine for the first run, but I don't agree that we = should say no consideration should be given to name issues while solving = number issues. It sounds like you're pushing very hard in that = direction, and I think that would limit the development of some very = useful work later. This would be very unfortunate. +1. >=20 >>> What train is leaving soon? >>=20 >> The charter. >=20 > There's no deadline of which I am aware. Only a desire for progress = toward consensus. And if there is a deadline / a train, I think it would be much faster to = get consensus on a charter that allows for the possibility of discussing = naming than ruling it out. Scope creep is bad, artificially limiting what the WG can discuss to = limit involvement, push a specific solution or for various political = reasons is worse. W=20 >=20 >> I did suggest that they get in a room and produce an RFC. As none of >> the RIRs supported that alternative, I take it that it is not an >> appropriate alternative to them. I am not suggesting that the number >> resources registries go ahead without the IETF. However, if that is = an >> alternative they are considering, it would be good if they say so on >> this mailing list as it would save people with an interest in the = IETF >> work some time. >=20 > Several RIRs were in the room in Taipei. I infer from this that they = do want an RFC and are willing to help with it and want to include = others in that process. And I think they make a fine example for the = name registries, even though one could argue that they have totally = different motivations. And I hope it works out that way one day. >=20 > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From francisco.arias@icann.org Thu Jan 12 18:02:32 2012 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 4B8DD21F84B8 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 8hRS-EMocwKf for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB12A21F84AE for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:31 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: SM Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:29 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczRl2hVAOfyVc7uROapeFS7xTYXWg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112124009.098465d0@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 02:02:32 -0000 On 1/12/12 1:37 PM, "SM" wrote: >If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its >interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and >that input should go into the deliverables. Is there anyone from >ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this? FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a few times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and name registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work done here. Regards, __ Francisco. From warren@kumari.net Thu Jan 12 18:40:01 2012 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 5B77E21F84E7 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:40:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, 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 6jhZwy3xLjab for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5DD21F849B for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 582341B40BCB; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:39:47 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:39:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <37177699-246B-4AC5-AEB3-6D1CBF0B9BCF@kumari.net> References: To: Francisco Arias X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 02:40:01 -0000 On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > On 1/12/12 1:37 PM, "SM" wrote: >=20 >=20 >> If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its >> interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and >> that input should go into the deliverables. Is there anyone from >> ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this? >=20 > FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a = few > times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and name > registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing = work > done here. There are also folk who are not ICANN employees, but who are involved in = the ICANN process for various reasons (from trying to make a difference = to believing that you lose the right to kvetch if you are not involved). W >=20 > Regards, >=20 > __ >=20 > Francisco. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 --- Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly . -- Radia Perlman. Warren Kumari warren@kumari.net From sm@resistor.net Thu Jan 12 18:50:16 2012 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 9272021F85E6 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:50:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.043, 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 JGgJKiRLNmtZ for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BFA21F85E0 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0D2nlM6029153; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:49:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326422993; i=@resistor.net; bh=8fA3j+4qPgbKinz4cSW4T6DMBR2AjdeythJitaPmFqo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=IUYhhdMGoAZynjHq4e2DhQRUzkzn/H9RN71BmkGpA2tgUzCVtxHpnVd7DGbdEpCGa HTJ54BiBGOAMYjneLPUZ7q6I97R3bciYeLwYJF8iy7EII/ox9Ua2GlH5Vubm96Gti8 cU27UzKOrkSQFTOcxUrfH6QO2T0IeolEjtQFBP8k= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112184236.0ad20518@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:47:38 -0800 To: Francisco Arias From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112124009.098465d0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 02:50:16 -0000 Hi Francisco, At 18:02 12-01-2012, Francisco Arias wrote: >FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a few >times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and name >registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work >done here. Thanks. Regards, -sm From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jan 12 23:26:01 2012 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 9FCC121F8533 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:26:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.115, 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 YGmnLevc4No6 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:26:01 -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 03B5A21F84E0 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:26:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21357 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2012 07:25:59 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Jan 2012 07:25:59 -0000 Date: 13 Jan 2012 07:25:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20120113072537.10151.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Names and numbers, was New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 07:26:01 -0000 >I think it would be fine for the charter to indicate that name >registries are out of scope for this run. I also think it would be fine >to acknowledge that we'd really like to do that later, and the success >of this first run will inform our decision about continuing into that >space later. Agreed. It seems very likely to me that whatever works for i18n and diffserv in number registries should be equally usable in names. The charter doesn't mention it, but we need some way to do referrals, whether HTTP redirects or something else, which should also be reusable. The data model will certainly be different, and there would doubtless be other differences, e.g., the way you ask for approximate matches, or the set of auxiliary things you can query for (handles, name servers, ASNs, what have you.) So long as the consideration of name queries is limited to informally encouraging appropriate pieces to be reusable, I don't see this leading into any particularly evil tarpits. R's, John From vesely@tana.it Fri Jan 13 09:26:39 2012 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 D8C8E21F8559 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.337, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RMML_Stock25=0.8] 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 iViNr3HeIVUj for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7B621F8551 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:26:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1326475598; bh=VQW50BIBiEuV9URakrI7das5nRaJ4d5PF0xAm8gyZUo=; l=970; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FG0lyEx6RXiY3mToUwULqg7cHjznEG1mzmtgUyn2qa8EscYJVFfyO1EWBAtfsDX9H SZsOB+gA/7VRE+2RVo5sjDZAf0BQvUgU7yfCcBraJ7eLqcLlQ2pPk9mZrmYCwDXbvX CQi/LVrIIfNM7x7nHruyE0iAJW072B+u72cG1BfQ= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:26:38 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F10694E.0000123F Message-ID: <4F10694D.4090907@tana.it> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:26:37 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 17:26:40 -0000 On 12/Jan/12 21:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > The central questions, to my mind, are these: > > 1. Do we need to charter a WG? Yes. > 2. Does that WG cover number resources? Yes. > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? No. > It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the > argument needs something more, I think, than abusing the name resources > question ("a waste of time and effort"). It seems to me that name resources enjoy a great DNS that provides a large amount data types, relevant to various protocols. Reverse DNS is not going to support publishing or finding the abuse-mailbox of a given IP, for example, while that could be specified for domain names. I don't mean to undervalue the importance of names or routes maintenance, but such operations are being carried out by fewer people than DNS lookups. Perhaps this consideration may contribute to explain the perceived asymmetry. jm2c From galvin+weirds@elistx.com Fri Jan 13 09:40:36 2012 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 598DC21F84A5 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:40:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 QTdfkmwFYg4Z for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:40:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF8521F849C for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:40:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0LXQ00M48ZLLMC@elistx.com> for weirds@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:36:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:41:34 -0500 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan , weirds@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 17:40:36 -0000 I was not, unfortunately, in Taipei, but I'd like to step up and say I'd like to see this work accommodate name registries. I represent a name registry (Afilias) and I will participate actively. Is this possible? Jim -- On January 11, 2012 4:30:48 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan wrote regarding [weirds] New proposed charter -- > Dear colleagues, > > I attach below a new proposed charter for a WG. I've attempted to > reflect what we heard in Taipei: charter for numbers first, with names > to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it. You may > throw your tomatoes now. > > A From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Jan 13 09:41:50 2012 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 1FF9A21F8526 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:41:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.666 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, 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 3dNE1hzD6Gss for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F9421F8518 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02A9E1ECB41D for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:41:43 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120113174143.GA7411@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <4F10694D.4090907@tana.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F10694D.4090907@tana.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 17:41:50 -0000 On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 06:26:37PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > It seems to me that name resources enjoy a great DNS that provides a > large amount data types, relevant to various protocols. Reverse DNS > is not going to support publishing or finding the abuse-mailbox of a > given IP, for example, while that could be specified for domain names. I don't understand. What does the DNS itself (either the forward or reverse trees) have to do with this? The point of WEIRDS for the name resources is roughly analagous to that for number resources: to replace WHOIS. WHOIS for domain names has very little to do with reverse-mapping in the DNS in practice, as far as I understand. Mostly, the whois for name registries is used to see who has registered a name, to do an out-of DNS check of the forward mapping settings, and so on. That is, we are talking about a registration-data access protocol. The DNS isn't that, though it is a distributed database that may depend on the registration database. I'm not trying to be obstructionist; I just don't understand so far any of the objections to including name resources as part of the list of things we may decide to work on if things go well with the number-resource work. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Fri Jan 13 10:01:53 2012 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 BD00D21F858F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:01:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frFxufjxRohX for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB54D21F8581 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:01:52 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=bU23gGS5p7e5NQgsqjIpyiN3mBf1VUP69x5CGN3PTbKyWnfbxAXOVjN2 SYS1P0jkEQzrigyNK0rbplZSwxKQnRV9n3T4cP+SrxhpvJo/BnOtgH4Sc KcyrEAPuIKifBZn; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1326477712; x=1358013712; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=U6m/LSQA61473n55vhDtcwuh6TGReBOoqDwOEktm8iY=; b=wBSgNIJ2FaSyRMcWLzKYhrUouaABAEhyMEuWwSm3hkc8OpnhgN2qSstI gvcnvrOkjPqotqceW9quJT+cGpDDlREDuQQ5rgUMI9rs4BP9tfzGd5gfu cX23FqJsQtNAI2T; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,505,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="4893880" Received: from den-vtenf-002.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-001.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.213]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2012 10:01:52 -0800 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.52]) with mapi; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:01:51 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Jim Galvin Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:01:48 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczSHW0bjn2cPNCYRZ6Ch/dh3VDzVQ== Message-ID: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: pEl3deJr3F64vQ08xJtNoQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 18:01:53 -0000 On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Jim Galvin wrote: > I was not, unfortunately, in Taipei, but I'd like to step up and say=20 > I'd like to see this work accommodate name registries. >=20 +1 From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Jan 13 10:12:10 2012 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 8455F21F8565 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:12:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 1fyeMZzItuCX for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:12:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD9B21F84E1 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:11:49 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Francisco Arias Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:11:45 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczSHtGFs7/AjIjyQjeDIo4KGHXC6g== Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 18:12:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'll second Francisco's expression of interest. The work being done here is= relevant to me and several others on the list. If my memory is correct, we= have been involved from the start. RIRs have more of an independent path to implementation than the ICANN comm= unity has, and this path is largely influenced by policy development proces= ses that involve registries, registrars, and a diverse set of stakeholders.= =20 We are not exactly agile and, honestly, some of us know this:-)=20 We are forced to take the long view on projects like this. As Francisco say= s, some of the folks whose interests lie in the domain name applicability a= re willing to commit to developing and reviewing work here. So I'm in favor= of a WG, and I'd like the protocol we develop to accommodate names, addres= ses, and generally any Internet resource that might be administered in a ma= nner where querying for registration information is appropriate. On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > On 1/12/12 1:37 PM, "SM" wrote: >=20 >=20 >> If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its >> interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and >> that input should go into the deliverables. Is there anyone from >> ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this? >=20 > FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a fe= w > times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and name > registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work > done here. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > __ >=20 > Francisco. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPEHPlAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNag0H/iOT1ij4U3e1dek5ChBtd9yv wU2m1jc+lMjrgQ0ysltLOrH+1WCaxHy4fG/LmKnZAxres24v/Sd40t97/KehAtD6 AkZkuoRiDYl6AYQPXpnGREMuXdM2U1u8mLMSI6LMQNhVgGVzoSTjk8381MsJdw1p IX/g1tiIUcLhccSNPgRhFfJMpCICCtgSz5rRnVzeKnyc9RsY7h2yBPXMVABIKtzt hjWt4itFr1c/3BE+mQUiLi2caP/K9OlFDCkYSkZRKrIgeF5hhlxeqAJS6giJSQXb I1HzRWuamw9oS7BIs/zlXsh2JT003NwQJ/4CjWl8KFTPPxa7NPjWh+UfZgLMu+0=3D =3D5hOV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sm@resistor.net Fri Jan 13 11:03:53 2012 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 8804F21F852C for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:03:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, 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 BtANqH6lXBhC for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4898421F8516 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0DJ3c73012721; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:03:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326481423; i=@resistor.net; bh=ucNutZ5g5MKGAOCuCXBApv1DNKT/i4PYR5HIbFP/YbE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=mf2xruuAQorL8gf4Q2SeAXKEGht1yEBv1E4rXIaAVqTF2jCcmDAjVeS4yxwsLekxk 4hia+isQHwEJnCZ4+l07gzB5UwWFwNjJjqcshsPIVCEo9dNKmiGhnR/beBFQbIA3rc WPWDg49jVzllNVpnrji41G1XJsQfXQouwDJkAXoI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120113105649.0b0e2238@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:00:06 -0800 To: Jim Galvin From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 13 Jan 2012 19:03:53 -0000 Hi Jim, At 09:41 13-01-2012, Jim Galvin wrote: >I was not, unfortunately, in Taipei, but I'd like to step up and say >I'd like to see this work accommodate name registries. > >I represent a name registry (Afilias) and I will participate actively. Active participation is most welcome. Regards, -sm From vesely@tana.it Sat Jan 14 03:21:23 2012 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 A184421F85D3 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:21:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.644 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YSdBJoBqY+f3 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:21:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEE621F8534 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:21:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1326540080; bh=1TQR/s2UHdRR2tvKslU8pUFiUvTJYwZyaU1u7qpLjAQ=; l=1871; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=RLwWk8K6AMUggjKrpTcPK3ewr63m4KBMbT3iH4gNidEINUQRaVBOOHu8vIh2M4mqF 8xLvOra5oMlsWC0kX49CIgID9CiMysigqECIFIwpeztyEmNa4dXeYlN+mmO8iNNBFu 9SOD7syUg8d0o4LCrc7pPIayqgGsUq4scPenfPhw= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:21:20 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F116530.000001A9 Message-ID: <4F116530.5090404@tana.it> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:21:20 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <4F10694D.4090907@tana.it> <20120113174143.GA7411@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120113174143.GA7411@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:21:23 -0000 On 13/Jan/12 18:41, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 06:26:37PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> It seems to me that name resources enjoy a great DNS that provides a >> large amount data types, relevant to various protocols. Reverse DNS >> is not going to support publishing or finding the abuse-mailbox of a >> given IP, for example, while that could be specified for domain names. > > I don't understand. What does the DNS itself (either the forward or > reverse trees) have to do with this? > > The point of WEIRDS for the name resources is roughly analogous to > that for number resources: to replace WHOIS. Fine. Indeed, the proposed charter enumerates some weaknesses of WHOIS. Besides i18n, which is very general, they concern the data model and user's authentication for differentiated services. Are any specific use cases being implied? > WHOIS for domain names has very little to do with reverse-mapping > in the DNS in practice, as far as I understand. Mostly, the whois > for name registries is used to see who has registered a name, to do > an out-of DNS check of the forward mapping settings, and so on. > That is, we are talking about a registration-data access protocol. In addition to that, RIRs' data is somehow being appointed to reflect who is responsible for networks' (ab)use. This use case is different. > The DNS isn't that, though it is a distributed database that may > depend on the registration database. I only pointed out that any attribute that doesn't have to be out-of DNS for some reason can be defined there. For rDNS that doesn't hold. So the different use case for number resources is to cope with the fact that rDNS doesn't work. Perhaps, we'd better explicitly gauge what use cases the new WG is going to cover, rather than implying them by number vs. name measurements. From Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com Sat Jan 14 20:29:14 2012 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 4F2C121F8486 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:29:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.755 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.673, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3JYRcnmYnS9 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy5.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC1AF21F8484 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 24162 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jan 2012 04:29:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2012 04:29:11 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=DfvWToSGakMXR7OUY5jBj3dr49wMpYZrt4T5j7Xs5zs=; b=NbMwsV6k+g4d4auLU4CEBzmCtI6/mzPTjrUBwa9be87g06QJacGzFCFW+hS0VhQ5zVGEHcFaF+XpFm3r+uWgF+82eD1H3TAMo/Hty9XGZlJAk9jvlz7cKQy65o3B5aXw; Received: from c-24-4-122-173.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.122.173] helo=[192.168.11.18]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RmHiR-0000tS-5D for weirds@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:29:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4F125615.6030603@KingsMountain.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:29:09 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 24.4.122.173 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter (referring to WHOIS) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:29:14 -0000 I suggest the charter clearly delineate, and explain the difference, between "whois, the protocol", and "whois, the domain name and IP address registration lookup service (that is offered, however inchoately, over multiple protocols)". =JeffH From dave.piscitello@icann.org Sun Jan 15 06:00:57 2012 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 03C0C21F8469 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:00:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 pFWHtMgYMTRQ for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:00:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B5021F8464 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:00:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:00:51 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: =JeffH Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:00:50 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter (referring to WHOIS) Thread-Index: AczTjhc3S/ib50zySVeLrwoSVYu4ZQ== Message-ID: <88DD400F-6B37-4F31-9647-EE181B661041@icann.org> References: <4F125615.6030603@KingsMountain.com> In-Reply-To: <4F125615.6030603@KingsMountain.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter (referring to WHOIS) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:00:57 -0000 Agree. ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee's document SAC051 address= es this exact problem. Perhaps the language recommended in that document is= relevant here. SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure (19 September 2011) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf On Jan 14, 2012, at 11:29 PM, =3DJeffH wrote: >=20 > I suggest the charter clearly delineate, and explain the difference, betw= een=20 > "whois, the protocol", and "whois, the domain name and IP address registr= ation=20 > lookup service (that is offered, however inchoately, over multiple protoc= ols)". >=20 > =3DJeffH >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From chris@ausregistry.com.au Sun Jan 15 14:54:54 2012 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 15EC521F84F4 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:54:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327] 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 ykHCJvO35E0F for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx02.ausregistry.net.au (mx02.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.15.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCD021F84F2 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au (HELO off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.1.3]) by iron02.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2012 09:54:51 +1100 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:54:37 +1100 From: Chris Wright To: Dave Piscitello , Francisco Arias Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:54:47 +1100 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczSHtGFs7/AjIjyQjeDIo4KGHXC6gBuR0gA Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB6B2A583966@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:54:54 -0000 I am one of the 'several others' who represents a name registry and would b= e interested in participating in a working group that will work on updating= /replacing 'WhoIs' for naming resources (amongst other things). Like Dave, = I think there is value in having a consistent way of querying information a= bout Internet Resources regardless of what those resources actually are. Thanks c. -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Dave Piscitello Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012 5:12 AM To: Francisco Arias Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'll second Francisco's expression of interest. The work being done here is= relevant to me and several others on the list. If my memory is correct, we= have been involved from the start. RIRs have more of an independent path to implementation than the ICANN comm= unity has, and this path is largely influenced by policy development proces= ses that involve registries, registrars, and a diverse set of stakeholders.= =20 We are not exactly agile and, honestly, some of us know this:-)=20 We are forced to take the long view on projects like this. As Francisco say= s, some of the folks whose interests lie in the domain name applicability a= re willing to commit to developing and reviewing work here. So I'm in favor= of a WG, and I'd like the protocol we develop to accommodate names, addres= ses, and generally any Internet resource that might be administered in a ma= nner where querying for registration information is appropriate. On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > On 1/12/12 1:37 PM, "SM" wrote: >=20 >=20 >> If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its=20 >> interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and=20 >> that input should go into the deliverables. Is there anyone from=20 >> ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this? >=20 > FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a=20 > few times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and=20 > name registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or=20 > reviewing work done here. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > __ >=20 > Francisco. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPEHPlAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNag0H/iOT1ij4U3e1dek5ChBtd9yv wU2m1jc+lMjrgQ0ysltLOrH+1WCaxHy4fG/LmKnZAxres24v/Sd40t97/KehAtD6 AkZkuoRiDYl6AYQPXpnGREMuXdM2U1u8mLMSI6LMQNhVgGVzoSTjk8381MsJdw1p IX/g1tiIUcLhccSNPgRhFfJMpCICCtgSz5rRnVzeKnyc9RsY7h2yBPXMVABIKtzt hjWt4itFr1c/3BE+mQUiLi2caP/K9OlFDCkYSkZRKrIgeF5hhlxeqAJS6giJSQXb I1HzRWuamw9oS7BIs/zlXsh2JT003NwQJ/4CjWl8KFTPPxa7NPjWh+UfZgLMu+0=3D =3D5hOV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From warren@kumari.net Sun Jan 15 15:31:49 2012 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 D523921F84D6 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:31:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 3wZk+S82u-07 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703D121F8438 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:31:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 583FD1B4069C; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:31:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <4F125615.6030603@KingsMountain.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:31:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4F125615.6030603@KingsMountain.com> To: =JeffH X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter (referring to WHOIS) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:31:50 -0000 On Jan 14, 2012, at 11:29 PM, =3DJeffH wrote: >=20 > I suggest the charter clearly delineate, and explain the difference, = between "whois, the protocol", and "whois, the domain name and IP = address registration lookup service (that is offered, however = inchoately, over multiple protocols)". >=20 Oooh, good point... "WHOIS" means different things to different folk. Some mean the protocol = itself, some mean the service, some mean the (lack of) format, etc. This has led to much hilarity[0] and misunderstandings and may have = helped contribute to some of the previous failures in this space. ICANN SSAC recently published a document to try and describe this issue = some: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf W [0]: Ok, not really... Full disclosure: Contributed *very* minorly to this doc=85 > =3DJeffH >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 --- Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly . -- Radia Perlman. Warren Kumari warren@kumari.net From warren@kumari.net Sun Jan 15 15:32:58 2012 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 9C08221F84F5 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:32:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, 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 J6NSDf4k3ajM for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A37921F84F2 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 845551B4069C; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:32:57 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <88DD400F-6B37-4F31-9647-EE181B661041@icann.org> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:33:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <462E6A78-721D-4530-AA8A-78C577BF7CDC@kumari.net> References: <4F125615.6030603@KingsMountain.com> <88DD400F-6B37-4F31-9647-EE181B661041@icann.org> To: Dave Piscitello X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter (referring to WHOIS) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:32:58 -0000 Yes, what he said... That'll teach me to reply to mail before reading the whole thread=85. Actually, I haven't learnt yet, so it probably won't, but should=85 W On Jan 15, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > Agree. >=20 > ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee's document SAC051 = addresses this exact problem. Perhaps the language recommended in that = document is relevant here. >=20 > SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure (19 September 2011) > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf >=20 > On Jan 14, 2012, at 11:29 PM, =3DJeffH wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> I suggest the charter clearly delineate, and explain the difference, = between=20 >> "whois, the protocol", and "whois, the domain name and IP address = registration=20 >> lookup service (that is offered, however inchoately, over multiple = protocols)". >>=20 >> =3DJeffH >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 --- Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly . -- Radia Perlman. Warren Kumari warren@kumari.net From fobispo@isc.org Mon Jan 16 09:26:49 2012 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 7063921F86A5 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:26:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=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 KJ1Fy92nv+7d for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C70621F86A4 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81533C944E for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:26:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [172.30.42.131] (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67099216C6D for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:26:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB6B2A583966@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:26:35 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <450E828D-B55B-4BE9-B869-C2D8B0C71FC9@isc.org> References: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB6B2A583966@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 16 Jan 2012 17:26:49 -0000 I am also interested in participating in this charter. If I had to throw some 'tomatoes' I would say that: * the RESTful interface should provide a standard framework for = encapsulating the various 'objects' that could be part of an answer; * Each interest group, should then work on their own object format so = that it can be transported as payload within the proposed RESTful = interface.=20 This should help us move a bit faster, considering that both Number = Resources and Name Resources need a standardized solution soon (new = gTLDs, RIRs implementing their own RESTful interfaces, etc.). Best regards, Francisco Obispo Director of Services - Internet Systems Consortium=20 email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC Key fingerprint =3D 532F 84EB 06B4 3806 D5FA 09C6 463E 614E B38D B1BE From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Mon Jan 16 16:49:35 2012 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 1482321F84DC for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:49:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJZN155WbY0Y for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6916021F86DA for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GMBTs0043189; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:11:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F14C595.9010808@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:49:25 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org, Andrew Sullivan References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:49:35 -0000 Andrew, > 1. Do we need to charter a WG? It is a convention. There are process consequences, both good and bad. > 2. Does that WG cover number resources? This seems reasonable. > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? This is reasonable too, just littered with former efforts, some the consequences of assumptions as to use cases which proved intractable. To generalize: There exist some allocators of unique (within some scope, sometimes globally unique) endpoint identifiers. These identifiers are used by (partial matching) routing systems and (exact matching) resource mapping systems. A query protocol to discover some properties of an endpoint, e.g., the entity to which the allocation was made, from the allocator of the endpoint, is proposed. A plethora of policy bells and whistles are to be evaluated for their scalability, conflicts, and costs. The protocol is minimally capable of supporting binary data transport, transport over CGN agile transport, wicked parallelizable, etc., and is known to work where the number of allocators is on the order of 10^^5. I'm willing to work on this (again). Eric From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Jan 19 04:30:18 2012 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 8DBE121F857D for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:30:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.927 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.742, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 fvWy7nB15OjS for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mail.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A974921F853D for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:30:16 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=b+vqctGWEZ2P9fjxa5aAXFAKq2H8nIKlvmw36ywqiUSBsx8NMR6GbC82 Hs8TC31KeoWaHBgtaxLDcdBCkFk+Kb43fOSenW10P9LZUogVJQlQ045TQ tNi5A96Bzovtakb; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1326976217; x=1358512217; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[weirds]=20New=20proposed=20charter |Date:=20Thu,=2019=20Jan=202012=2012:30:14=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nomi net.org.uk>|To:=20Andrew=20Sullivan=20|CC:=20""=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|Content-ID:=20|In-Reply-To:=20<20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.i nfo>|References:=20<20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.inf o>=0D=0A=20<6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.ne t>=0D=0A=20<20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca>=0D=0A =20<6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net>=0D=0A =20<20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info>; bh=Hl/nesZJ6yoHThSbIIyUYG00EwZyi1WRyVqQT+Oqu/4=; b=MQLIKbT02KZoQunvzvJ21qJe+dRXYpBJy6rZR10IBr2rQ6wc00USGVtl IR+72wzMXz0y/1OK1S+xJRFQ+OM2uSj8J+435F3QOq07/EB4uAx3gkrdv 1YANKQ+RXybQLTc; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,535,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="30726638" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2012 12:30:14 +0000 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:30:14 +0000 From: Ray Bellis To: Andrew Sullivan Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHM0KhPXny2jj+5G06/tNe60gv7p5YHz9sAgAEVewCAAB7SgIAAC/4AgAqauQA= Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:30:14 +0000 Message-ID: <871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nominet.org.uk> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 19 Jan 2012 12:30:18 -0000 On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a > draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had > an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the > record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts > too. +1 for .uk too. > That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that > there are more RIRs than name registries Huh? There are five RIRs, and _hundreds_ of name registries. I note also that the final Application Guidebook for new TLDs requests deta= ils of other services provided by the registry with "RESTful whois" now lis= ted as an example thereof. Ray From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Jan 19 04:43:29 2012 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 2759521F853F for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:43:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 uRBjwmcKMdBd for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og116.obsmtp.com (exprod6og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F2321F853A for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:43:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob116.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTxgP7WVx4lMuCI7Ljkcm/Q6XZ5ORUL65@postini.com; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:43:28 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q0JChP1k023116; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:43:25 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.246]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:43:25 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:43:25 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Ray Bellis Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHM0KhPXny2jj+5G06/tNe60gv7p5YHz9sAgAEVewCAAB7SgIAAC/4AgAqauQCAAAGR8A== Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:43:23 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D57EA62@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nominet.org.uk> 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 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2012 12:43:25.0557 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFA85250:01CCD6A7] Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 19 Jan 2012 12:43:29 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ray Bellis > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:30 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 >=20 > On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >=20 > > But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a > > draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had > > an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the > > record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts > > too. >=20 > +1 for .uk too. I'm also willing to participate and contribute. My employer provides whois = services for a mix of large and small TLDs. I'm completely OK with the idea= of focusing first on RIR needs, but I would like the deliverables to be a = useful foundation for later name registry work. Scott From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Jan 19 07:34:48 2012 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 B911321F8609 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:34:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11] 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 pTj4UroVVGQa for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:34:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452DD21F85F1 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:34:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (nat-03-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54FED1ECB420 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:34:45 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120119153445.GE5650@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nominet.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nominet.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 19 Jan 2012 15:34:48 -0000 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:30:14PM +0000, Ray Bellis wrote: > > On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line. It's true that > > there are more RIRs than name registries > > Huh? > > There are five RIRs, and _hundreds_ of name registries. Oops. That'll teach me to send mail that's had its composition interrupted. What I meant to say had I finished the sentence was, "It's true that there are more RIRs than name registries that have an experimental service along these lines up and running. But that's a reason to work on their problems first, not to rule the latter's problems out of scope." Sorry for the truncation. Given the discussion we've seen here, I'll have another whack at charter text soon. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From eosterweil@verisign.com Thu Jan 19 11:35:06 2012 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 4650E21F86AA for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:35:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 nbmpQiATq+lp for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og114.obsmtp.com (exprod6og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5FA21F8512 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:34:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTxhwP2wJMNlQ7I5KGvXW1iUnGF+Zivvb@postini.com; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:35:05 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q0JJYMaW006618; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:34:22 -0500 Received: from dul1eosterwe-m1.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.100.1.67]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:34:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Eric Osterweil In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:34:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <677F5E41-3F94-4A68-9FAD-3D2F01BDEEAA@verisign.com> References: To: Francisco Arias X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2012 19:34:22.0450 (UTC) FILETIME=[584F9D20:01CCD6E1] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 19 Jan 2012 19:35:06 -0000 On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > On 1/12/12 1:37 PM, "SM" wrote: >=20 >=20 >> If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its >> interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and >> that input should go into the deliverables. Is there anyone from >> ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this? >=20 > FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a = few > times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and name > registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing = work > done here. A very enthusiastic +1... The people that I work with and I are very = interested in both seeing this effort progress and helping. Eric= From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Jan 27 14:38:23 2012 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 2710421F8518 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:38:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, 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 AeLkl65LUkoe for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8712521F8517 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE1AB1ECB41F for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:38:19 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 27 Jan 2012 22:38:23 -0000 Dear colleagues, I modified the previously-posted draft charter in keeping with what I understood from the comments last time. Here's what I did: - I did _not_ remove the discussions of name registries. It appeared from the discussion that we have volunteers for names, and most of the response seemed to be opposed to ruling names out of scope. - I changed "number registries" to "number resource registries". I didn't use "number resources registries" because it just seemed too awkward, but I'm willing to entertain arguments about this. I notice that ARIN stands for American Registry for Internet Numbers; so "number registry" might still be ok. But "NRO" expands to "Number Resource Organization", so I think "number resource" ought to be ok. - I attempted to alter the text in line with many of the suggestions from the list, but in keeping with the previous two bullets. I think I addressed everything, so long as it did not seem to be directed to setting name registries out of scope. Comments, tomatoes, &c. welcome as usual. If at all possible I would like to nail this down soon. In principle, if we seem to have agreement and think we could make some progress, we could request a BoF until 2012-02-13. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Jan 27 14:41:25 2012 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 A39BA21F8526 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:41:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.049, 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 ZQ1nDYv-DoHY for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34C821F8518 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 924591ECB41F for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:41:18 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 27 Jan 2012 22:41:25 -0000 --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline And now, of course, with the attachment goodness you were promised. A On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:38:19PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I modified the previously-posted draft charter in keeping with what I > understood from the comments last time. Here's what I did: > > - I did _not_ remove the discussions of name registries. It > appeared from the discussion that we have volunteers for names, > and most of the response seemed to be opposed to ruling names out > of scope. > > - I changed "number registries" to "number resource registries". > I didn't use "number resources registries" because it just seemed > too awkward, but I'm willing to entertain arguments about this. I > notice that ARIN stands for American Registry for Internet > Numbers; so "number registry" might still be ok. But "NRO" > expands to "Number Resource Organization", so I think "number > resource" ought to be ok. > > - I attempted to alter the text in line with many of the > suggestions from the list, but in keeping with the previous two > bullets. I think I addressed everything, so long as it did not > seem to be directed to setting name registries out of scope. > > Comments, tomatoes, &c. welcome as usual. If at all possible I would > like to nail this down soon. In principle, if we seem to have > agreement and think we could make some progress, we could request a > BoF until 2012-02-13. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wierds-charter-20120127a.txt" WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-01-27 Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick & Peter Saint-Andre Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion of the registry database. Most registries offer the service via WHOIS (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC 2622). While name and number resource registries contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow different access rates to it. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more might be anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number registries. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 1. Complete support for internationalization of queries and responses, including a standard representation for non-ASCII text in queries and responses, and ways to indicate language or character set preferences for responses. The Working Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is an appropriate selector. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user. The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit future development in other registries, including number registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name registries. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial work list for the working group shall not include work on name registry support, and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar to name registries. However, when choosing between two otherwise-equivalent options, the working group shall prefer the one that is most amenable to re-use by name registries, and potential re-use by name registries will be a guiding principle of the work. Name registry support is explicitly part of the working group's scope, but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. Milestones [start + 2 months] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. [start + 6 months] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. [start + 8 months] Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi-- From galvin+weirds@elistx.com Fri Jan 27 15:47:57 2012 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 85D8B21F8512 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:47:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 sPhSY7HO7HsP for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:47:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB01A21F8510 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:47:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0LYH0001DE2IAV@elistx.com> for weirds@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:47:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:48:08 -0500 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> To: weirds@ietf.org Message-id: <472E55C4346957A8AD815682@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 27 Jan 2012 23:47:57 -0000 If the intent is to include name registries as in scope I have two questions about elements of the charter. WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-01-27 .... deleted for brevity The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. Presumably the phrase after the last comma is an oversight that should have been deleted? And now the remaining three paragraphs: The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit future development in other registries, including number registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name registries. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial work list for the working group shall not include work on name registry support, and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar to name registries. However, when choosing between two otherwise-equivalent options, the working group shall prefer the one that is most amenable to re-use by name registries, and potential re-use by name registries will be a guiding principle of the work. Name registry support is explicitly part of the working group's scope, but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. Is there a reason the preceding paragraphs can not be reduced to the following: The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number and name registries. This may require two independent data profiles. Jim From zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Sat Jan 28 19:38:17 2012 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 811E521F8494 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:38:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.451 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45] 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 M1xE3bIwW7Ml for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 042D621F85EC for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:38:15 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO b000000000820q) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:38:13 +0800 From: "Linlin Zhou" To: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <871230A6-F2A9-4F28-84B4-0F1A8BE81BFC@nominet.org.uk> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D57EA62@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D57EA62@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:38:27 +0800 Message-ID: <005a01ccde37$78871cf0$699556d0$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: AQHM0KhPXny2jj+5G06/tNe60gv7p5YHz9sAgAEVewCAAB7SgIAAC/4AgAqauQCAAAGR8IAPHL4w Content-Language: zh-cn Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:38:17 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Ray Bellis > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:30 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 >=20 > On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >=20 > > But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a=20 > > draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore. Moreover, we had = > > an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the = > > record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts=20 > > too. >=20 > +1 for .uk too. My colleagues and I from CNNIC are also interested in doing something helpful for the WG. CNNIC, which is the registry of ".CN" and ".=D6=D0=B9=FA/.=D6=D0=87=F8", = is willing to contribute, and support the charter to include the name registries. We = would like to contribute requirements, design or test suggestions for the new protocol especially in the area of supporting IDN queries and responses, = and participate further positively in the process. Best Regards, Linlin Zhou From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Sun Jan 29 08:27:23 2012 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 02F0921F84A5 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:27:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, 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 xtwgwZNiQMAS for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B8021F84A1 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 711F91ECB41C for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:27:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:27:32 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120129162732.GB19634@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> <472E55C4346957A8AD815682@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <472E55C4346957A8AD815682@James-Galvin-2.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:27:23 -0000 On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 06:48:08PM -0500, Jim Galvin wrote: > If the intent is to include name registries as in scope I have two > questions about elements of the charter. Well, my intention at least was not to include name registries _in_ scope, but not to rule them out of scope. That is, they are in scope in principle, but the initial work is to focus on number resources because that was the overwhelming agreement for initial focus in Taipei. I think the reason for that agreement was that we had three number resource regiestries who had produced drafts, worked examples, and so on. We had only one name registry, and not a very big one at that. If you're saying now that there is actually room for a dual initial focus, to include name registries from the beginning, then the best way to illustrate that would be with an Internet Draft, apart from draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd (or else a bunch of review of that one saying, "This is the basis for moving ahead on name registries"), or something like that. A top-down approach, in which the charter is established first and then we say, "Get to work," is exactly the sort of thing people were objecting to in Taipei, so I don't think the inital charter could include name registry object mappings in its initial set of deliverables. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From vesely@tana.it Mon Jan 30 02:19:00 2012 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 4BA3F21F8567 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:19:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C2pjp4swZnjd for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:18:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1395621F8566 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:18:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1327918737; bh=hv+6CyfdBuGrlCnbdrK6yOEjkIUBPQ01XFQK871aArQ=; l=796; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ef0F/UJLPtEYQL0c0DqZXC0bfD+gy7PnhPIAM08E4eK10qbhY+x6yyCeRvTvm1hM+ gJJ6WcteDtzfMWi+p1gLK/xJFtOurQtBRR/v56ZRdVECjR5dkggBWVIVwutbhskTd7 Rk/xxOOz2s3lI8QeYEHS2fH0IrMvYkvSad7v4E3Q= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:18:57 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004F266E91.0000760C Message-ID: <4F266E90.2060204@tana.it> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:18:56 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> <472E55C4346957A8AD815682@James-Galvin-2.local> In-Reply-To: <472E55C4346957A8AD815682@James-Galvin-2.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 30 Jan 2012 10:19:00 -0000 On 28/Jan/12 00:48, Jim Galvin wrote: > > Is there a reason the preceding paragraphs can not be reduced to the > following: > > The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object > format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide > the necessary support for operation of number and name registries. > This may require two independent data profiles. While I agree that shorter is better, I think that those profiles should (also, if not primarily) reflect the _actual_ data models, as currently served via whois/web interfaces. Can the charter accommodate an *additional deliverable* on this topic? That is, can we produce a single document stating the best current practices as an item independent of the (informal) requirements? TIA for any +1 From carlosm3011@gmail.com Mon Jan 30 03:30:26 2012 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 E7FF021F86B7 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PwkseW46h36Z for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0947921F86A7 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsf16 with SMTP id f16so2492617qcs.31 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Sh2XWdFBJG4ZMQE8wTnlkC0BdRr2/chv9GZjMuRQMdg=; b=dWACYxSHPMQ626u84s/qBrglPLpPDGWw1A4dx9yQyfGqunm2RpUHdyy/GI4q9Jh8yy UTONONEV9GfT9/KETyRTCgEMrkmbIMDO8O8d2M4zISbGCp7IGXdl1qqoDJGoscuNpjRH NPBZ/I69sx82N3CHYoNd+97OrFEuKXXWaEGAg= Received: by 10.229.135.149 with SMTP id n21mr6212378qct.85.1327923025592; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [200.7.85.175] ([200.7.85.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g9sm34398836qad.16.2012.01.30.03.30.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F267F56.8000200@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:30:30 -0200 From: "Carlos M. Martinez" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> <472E55C4346957A8AD815682@James-Galvin-2.local> <4F266E90.2060204@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F266E90.2060204@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter 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, 30 Jan 2012 11:30:27 -0000 Hello, I believe that at this point we should avoid getting bogged down in the mud of data models. This doesn't mean they are not important, it means that we should not get too exited and perfectionists. Reflecting currently-in-use data models and abstracting the representation of the most commonly used objects (IP addresses, organizations, people, dns servers) should be enough for now. In my head, the ideal situation would be: - abstract commonly appearing objects (addresses, domains, organizations, people), try to reflect currently-in-use formats - provide for extensibility everywhere, allowing parties to add their own fields to each of these objects - provide for additional-non standard objects Once we have *something* in place, avoiding a multi-year discussion on the merits of this or that representation or model then we can re-charter and have some more formal data model in place. regards Carlos On 1/30/12 8:18 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 28/Jan/12 00:48, Jim Galvin wrote: >> Is there a reason the preceding paragraphs can not be reduced to the >> following: >> >> The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object >> format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide >> the necessary support for operation of number and name registries. >> This may require two independent data profiles. > While I agree that shorter is better, I think that those profiles > should (also, if not primarily) reflect the _actual_ data models, as > currently served via whois/web interfaces. > > Can the charter accommodate an *additional deliverable* on this topic? > That is, can we produce a single document stating the best current > practices as an item independent of the (informal) requirements? > > TIA for any +1 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds -- -- Carlos M. Martinez LACNIC R+D http://www.labs.lacnic.net From aservin@lacnic.net Mon Jan 30 17:09:19 2012 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 7B66511E80FF for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:09:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, 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 Ta+hJUoU+Vrq for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:09:19 -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 C8DBD11E80F6 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:09:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (r186-48-197-3.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.197.3]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FC2308446; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:09:09 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:09:08 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120127224118.GA18314@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:09:19 -0000 I am ok with this version. Also I would like to have a BoF in Paris. Regards, /as On 27 Jan 2012, at 20:41, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > And now, of course, with the attachment goodness you were promised. >=20 > A >=20 > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:38:19PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >>=20 >> I modified the previously-posted draft charter in keeping with what I >> understood from the comments last time. Here's what I did: >>=20 >> - I did _not_ remove the discussions of name registries. It >> appeared from the discussion that we have volunteers for names, >> and most of the response seemed to be opposed to ruling names out >> of scope. >>=20 >> - I changed "number registries" to "number resource registries". >> I didn't use "number resources registries" because it just seemed >> too awkward, but I'm willing to entertain arguments about this. I >> notice that ARIN stands for American Registry for Internet >> Numbers; so "number registry" might still be ok. But "NRO" >> expands to "Number Resource Organization", so I think "number >> resource" ought to be ok. >>=20 >> - I attempted to alter the text in line with many of the >> suggestions from the list, but in keeping with the previous two >> bullets. I think I addressed everything, so long as it did not >> seem to be directed to setting name registries out of scope. >>=20 >> Comments, tomatoes, &c. welcome as usual. If at all possible I would >> like to nail this down soon. In principle, if we seem to have >> agreement and think we could make some progress, we could request a >> BoF until 2012-02-13. >>=20 >> Best regards, >>=20 >> Andrew >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > = ____________________________________________= ___ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@arin.net Tue Jan 31 12:33:55 2012 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 69D3311E80E3 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:33:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jTGN5iuZdm4t for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:33:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CE711E809D for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:33:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 098A3213627; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:33:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683D1213600 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.19) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:33:38 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:33:47 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHM4Fehxqui59xjqEmBjGmZ3VVJMg== Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:33:46 +0000 Message-ID: <88E58CFB-25CD-414F-A5F1-A4CA9C8F46A3@arin.net> References: <20120131201836.4748.18226.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <61656D46F620CD428735C9F24178A0B9@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response-00.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:33:55 -0000 Hot off the presses. Kaveh, Arturo and I have been batting this around and = finally got a first version. For those who need a link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-et= -al-weirds-rir-json-response/ -andy Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-= response-00.txt > Date: January 31, 2012 3:18:36 PM EST > To: > Cc: , , >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response-00.txt = has been successfully submitted by Andrew Newton and posted to the IETF rep= ository. >=20 > Filename: draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response > Revision: 00 > Title: JSON Responses to RESTful URL Queries for RIRs > Creation date: 2012-01-31 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 16 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes responses in the JSON format to the RESTful > queries described in draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Jan 31 23:04:57 2012 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 CE5C621F854C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:04:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 U4lvkFtegH1w for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470B821F854B for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:04:56 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:04:56 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:04:57 -0800 Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt Thread-Index: Aczgr6EiLKAY1MdiS5aSc28kmopDNQAAA6Jw Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DAEDEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service $WEIRDS$" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:04:58 -0000 --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DAEDEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is mostly just to refresh the expired timer, but I cleaned out some st= uff that isn't needed and took some baby steps toward making it focus on nu= mber registries without leaving out name registries entirely. Happy to take more feedback, or we can just leave it as-is as a starting po= int for when the WG actually forms. -MSK --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DAEDEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from EXCH-HTCAS902.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.74) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:41 -0800 Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (208.83.136.59) by ht2.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:40 -0800 Received: from mail.ietf.org ?(mail.ietf.org [12.22.58.30]) by mail.cloudmark.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1173e3U008122 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:40 -0800 (envelope-from i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A6A21F854B; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC0121F854B for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:29 -0800 (PST) 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 U-SkeDbrRzl4 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF5121F8517 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:13 -0800 (PST) From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" To: "i-d-announce@ietf.org" Sender: "i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:03:13 -0800 Subject: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt Thread-Index: Aczgr6EiLKAY1MdiS5aSc28kmopDNQ== Message-ID: <20120201070313.16554.92586.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Reply-To: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: ietf.org X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com: domain of i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org designates 12.22.58.30 as permitted sender) receiver=exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com; client-ip=12.22.58.30; helo=mail.cloudmark.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1328079812; bh=f2N+/oH3xS4njg5NnCgTnId9kZ2jOawgGur+nIYSnUs=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=tKVKfq/Bw18W+NrxHtVsdN+sDZIf8DOhYZiiNL5mi9Hf860DZFkrQ/67OSAkGIb6L VQH5pHULCqgq94CVo8iR/ZZSaGSzuQSq/CAb/BD44nzBmeDsc8tPy3HgVLjJ1aw6f1 /9lyghsAN8uPcL48ZWVUEvWv/2n0Y9LHR1HhYXzQ= errors-to: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org delivered-to: i-d-announce@ietfa.amsl.com x-spam-flag: NO x-virus-scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com x-spam-score: -102.589 x-spam-level: x-spam-status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] x-original-to: i-d-announce@ietfa.amsl.com x-beenthere: i-d-announce@ietf.org x-mailman-version: 2.1.12 list-id: Internet Draft Announcements only list-archive: list-post: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : Requirements For Internet Registry Services Author(s) : Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2012-01-31 This document enumerates a base set of requirements that should be included in any system that provides registration information for Internet network entities, i.e., network assignments. Some of these, in turn, will define requirements for registrars; this, however, is an issue outside of the scope of this document. It is hoped that this work will influnce the development of requirements and specifications for domain name registries at some point in the future. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.= txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.t= xt _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DAEDEXCHC2corpclo_--