Subject: [Ietf-not43] draft CRISP charter

From: April.Marine at nominum.com (April Marine)
Date: Fri Oct 24 20:49:03 2003

One of our agenda items is to update our charter and milestones.  We have
kicked around the following and want to run it by the group so you have
time to review before the meeting (and so we can get input from those of
you who won't be attending the meeting).  This is a DRAFT, up for
comments.  I'm sure the milestone dates will change at the mtg.

thx!
April

---------------------

In the standard operation of Internet systems, various labels and data
are managed globally -- domain names, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses,
etc. From time to time, for operational and administrative purposes,
users of the Internet need to be able to find and access registered
information associated with those labels.

The CRISP (Cross-Registry Information Service Protocol) WG will
define a standard mechanism that can be used for:

 - finding authoritative information associated with a label,

 - a protocol to transport queries and responses for accessing that
   information,

 - a first profile (schema & queries) to support commonly-required
   queries for domain registration information,

* - a second profile (schema & queries) to support commonly-required
   queries for IP address registration information.

The WG will strive to preserve an extensible architecture so that the
work possibly be useful in the future to other types of registries
beyond those specifically considered by the group.

Specific topics that are NOT goals of this WG are:

 - Backwards compatibility with existing administrative directory
   services such as WHOIS.

 - Provisioning of data into registry or registrar systems. CRISP
   provides a uniform access to and view of data that may be held in
   disparate backend servers.

The CRISP service definition will define:

 - a standard mechanism that can be used to determine the
   authoritative server(s) for information about a given label

 - a single mandatory to implement protocol for transporting
   application queries and responses, including

 - expression of input query

 - expression of result sets

 - standard expression of error conditions

 - authentication and verification of data integrity

 - specific data types and queries to be supported in the
   supported registry services.

Deliverables:

 - Requirements document as an Informational RFC. (previously submitted)

 - First draft of protocol (use) specification. (previously submitted)

 - First draft of domain registration administrative directory
   services required schema element specification. (previously submitted)

 - Document specifying a new protocol, or the use of an existing one,
   for providing CRISP service (application transport).

 - Document specifying required schema elements and queries for domain
   registration administrative directory queries.

* - Document specifying required schema elements and queries for IP address
   registration administrative directory queries.

*Milestones:

Jan 04 Submit revised protocol (use) specification document as
  Proposed Standard

Jan 04 Submit revised draft of domain registration administrative
  directory services required schema element specification as Proposed
  Standard.

Feb 04 Submit first draft of IP address registration administrative
  directory services required schema element specification

Apr 04 Submit revised draft of IP address registration administrative
  directory services required schema element specification as Proposed
  Standard.

---

From: william at completewhois.com (William Leibzon)
Date: Sun Oct 26 20:09:09 2003

It would be better to use more general term then just "IP address 
registration" or are we on purpose forgetting about ASNs?

In some arin policies (such as experimental resource allocation 2002-2) 
the term used is "Numbering Resources" with definition for it given as 
"'Numbering Resources' refers to IPv4 or IPv6 address space and Autonomous
System numbers".

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, April Marine wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
>

---

From: April.Marine at nominum.com (April Marine)
Date: Thu Oct 30 13:46:29 2003

Sorry for the delay in replying.  This is a very good point.  I will flag
it for now vs. doing yet another iteration of the charter and incorporate
the final language choice into the final charter update.

thanks!
A.

---

From: anewton at ecotroph.net (Andrew Newton)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:31:29 2003

This doesn't seem to take into account Ginny's draft on the requirements 
for number resource registries:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-internet-resource-number-req-00.txt

Is that a given?

-andy

---

From: April.Marine at nominum.com (April Marine)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:37:55 2003

mm, when you say "this" do you mean the charter?  because at first I
thought you meant that doc and that doc is Ginny's draft.

If you mean the charter, we need to decide after the briefing on the
draft that Ginny is giving in Minn. as to whether to adopt it as a WG
item.  Obviously, the draft charter assumes we are going in that
direction, but I didn't want to be *too* presumptuous.  The draft
charter/milestones are there as a starting point for discussion--I expect
they will be tweaked.

If I misunderstood your question, pls let me know.

thanks!
A.

---

From: anewton at ecotroph.net (Andrew Newton)
Date: Thu Oct 30 15:00:37 2003

Sorry... this = proposed new charter  -- as in: "This makes sense."

thanks.

-andy