Subject: [Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

From: chris.ambler at enom.com (Chris Ambler)
Date: Wed Oct 15 15:04:41 2003

Interchange between registrars. The impetus for this is the problem wherein
registrars have to hit each other's port 43 systems and page scrape to
verify registrant data for transfers. We're implementing a two-front
solution consisting of a predictable format as well as an IP-whitelist to
ensure access to the interface. Some registrars are emitting the XML in
their port 43 systems and others are making SOAP web services available (or
both).

So, the simple solution appeared to be to return a single result containing
a "domain" element and an "additional" element such that all data is
available in a single payload transmission. I could write my own schema, or
use dreg. It seemed logical to use dreg.

And yes, this could be characterized not as "backwards compatibility with
WHOIS," but the first step in "WHOIS forward compatibility" for what it's
worth (perhaps not much :-))

Again, I'm open to consensus on this. Perhaps track dreg as the format, but
be a separate effort, which would eliminate any crossover, yet provide for
easier interoperability, should that come to pass?

Christopher

-----Original Message-----
From: David Blacka [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 02:25 pm, Chris Ambler wrote:

> The goal here is to create a WHOIS interchange format. Period. At
> Rick's urging, we're using dreg instead of something new, simply
> because they'd be, essentially, the same thing. The only difficulty
> here is in getting the data into a single transmission, which is
> made slightly challenging because of the normalization issue. But
> including the elements in the additional element should solve this.

Perhaps you said earlier, but interchanging between what and what?  I
only ask because if you want a format for exchanging entire WHOIS data
sets, you might want to look at the <iris:serialization> stuff
described in the iris-core document.  Otherwise, you are almost
describing a limited IRIS server using a different transport.  Not
that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.

-- 
David Blacka    <[email-masked]> 
Sr. Engineer    Verisign Applied Research

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

---

From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed Oct 15 16:00:45 2003

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:04:36 -0700

> easier interoperability, should that come to pass?

no lets not have seporate efforts, lets get some feedback to the draft authors of what works in the real world. I'll be happy to help chris author a draft on his effort and get that back to this group as some inplementation feedback

-rick

---

From: April.Marine at nominum.com (April Marine)
Date: Wed Oct 15 16:29:04 2003

I have to cry "focus!" here as co-chair.  I think Chris's work is very
interesting, but it is not CRISP.  It is not an implementation of the IRIS
protocol, which is not even fully defined.  Defining that protocol is what
the CRISP WG is tasked to do and what this list needs to focus on.  It's
hard enough to make progress on just ONE topic, so I really don't want to
add more stuff, tangentially relevant as it may be.

I'm sure we can find someone to host list for this effort and I'm sure
many CRISPies would join and comment.  But if we start going off on a
tangent now, we won't finish our "real" work.

This statement in no way is meant as a comment on the work going on here,
just a comment on the fact that is should not be going on "here". :)

Speaking of this WG's work, how about some comments on the discussion
points Andy took the time to put together and post for us?

thanks,
April

---

From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed Oct 15 16:48:27 2003

April,

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:29:00 -0700 (PDT)

> add more stuff, tangentially relevant as it may be.

I'd agree with you except chris already identified a critical point on refencing contacts.
 
> tangent now, we won't finish our "real" work.

actually I feel this "feedback" is quite relivant and usefull. 
 
> just a comment on the fact that is should not be going on "here". :)

realy, I hadn't seend anything going on here and the debate one the ontent of the dreg spec is actuallu useful.
 
> points Andy took the time to put together and post for us?

yes, we will get to those....

-rick

---

From: william at completewhois.com (William Leibzon)
Date: Wed Oct 15 17:00:21 2003

> points Andy took the time to put together and post for us?

I think this was interesting discussion on some practical use of CRISP 
structures and I think its not at all off-topic to the list even if its 
off-the side from the main track of this group. I have myself started 
implementing a converter from whois output to a more standard form
with XML as possible output (internally it transforms output from multiple 
registrars to identify common fields and then can display it in pre-defined
templated format or output as pure xml). I'm not using SOAP, but I was 
interested in hearing how others are doing. I know of at least one 
other whois proxy client developer who was also doing xml conversion and 
I'm sure there are others and we would like to coordinate with registrars 
if they support xml and how to use it directly as well as registrars 
themselve who may want to talk about it their own coordination as Chris 
mentioned. 

If there is indeed no interest in continuing discussion on using xml with 
current whois and making it forward compatible with future CRISP, then 
I'm willing to host a separate mailing list for this topic, but I hope it 
can stay here.

---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks,
Completewhois Project

---

From: April.Marine at nominum.com (April Marine)
Date: Wed Oct 15 17:10:59 2003

Hm, in reviewing some of the feedback on my "focus" msg, let me clarify a
couple of things.

 - Chris can get the feedback and input he desires via another list.  No
one on this list is going to ignore that work.

 - The IRIS folks can get the feedback and input they no doubt value via
another list.  So that effort will not lack valuable input, an example of
which Rick has pointed out already.

 - As I was just looking at the charter and milestones this morning as a
prelude to making sure they are up to date, the following sentence from
the charter is fresh in my mind: "Backwards compatibility with existing
administrative directory services such as WHOIS is not a goal of this
effort."

So, IMO, a separate effort does not harm Chris's work, but combining that
work on the CRISP list *could* dilute the focus on CRISP, which, as
co-chair, I must defend. :)

In no way is my request to move the discussion meant to say that it is not
useful, interesting or valuable.

thanks,
A.

---

From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed Oct 15 17:26:02 2003

April,

lets not let administrativia get in the way of some valuable work/input.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:10:55 -0700 (PDT)

> administrative directory services such as WHOIS is not a goal of this

chris's effort is not for backward compatability, the port he is working on is irrilivant. he is interested in a single shot query/response lookup over SOAP using dreg. He is only using a diferent transport that beep. I've herd no implementation report on CRISP over beep, though i have herd grumbelings of a desire for a udp transport, so when did SOAP become out of scope?

Stop being blinded when someone says "whois" as it is more often a service than a proto.

-rick

---

From: davidb at verisignlabs.com (David Blacka)
Date: Wed Oct 15 18:10:25 2003

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 05:24 pm, Rick Wesson wrote:
> chris's effort is not for backward compatability, the port he is working 
on is irrilivant. he is interested in a single shot query/response lookup 
over SOAP using dreg. He is only using a diferent transport that beep. 
I've herd no implementation report on CRISP over beep, though i have herd 
grumbelings of a desire for a udp transport, so when did SOAP become out 
of scope?

If, fundamentally, Chris is describing a special use case of IRIS, then all 
of his work is in scope.  The use case he is describing 
(registar-to-registrar communication for the purposes of whatever) is one, 
IMHO, that should be in scope for the WG if it isn't.

If, however, he is describing and aiming for a protocol that is somewhere 
between current WHOIS and IRIS, then some of his work will be in scope for 
this group, and some will not.  And unfortunately, it will be difficult to 
tell which is which, because the stuff that is in scope really should be 
discussed on this list because it will help finish IRIS/DREG.

Btw, Rick, what are you looking for as an implementation report of CRISP 
over BEEP?  We've implemented it and released the code.  We've even 
released a perl command line client that uses BEEP.

---

From: anewton at ecotroph.net (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed Oct 15 21:51:13 2003

> chris's effort is not for backward compatability, the port he is working on is irrilivant. he is interested in a single shot query/response lookup over SOAP using dreg. He is only using a diferent…

We've got two server and client implementations doing IRIS over BEEP if 
you would like an implementation report.

With regard to transports:

1) There is already an iris-lwz transport (using udp) defined as an 
individual submission (not a working group item).
2) There is also another individual submission on how to do whois/crisp 
cohabitation (also not a working group item).

I put these down to show that the chairs have made these types of 
decisions in the past and that this is not new.  Chairs do have certain 
responsibilities not to let things boil for too long, and I understand this.

3) IRIS over nicname/whois is akin to IRIS over TCP.  In fact, if you 
have it on another port number, it would look astonishingly similar. 
This is just an observation.
4) The question of SOAP has come up many times, and its use has larger 
meaning than the CRISP working group for use with IETF protocols.  In 
other words, I think there are larger meta questions that need to be 
answered.  Personally, if IRIS over SOAP is to be persued, I think it 
should be done in a similar fashion to what the NeuStar guys were trying 
to do with EPP over SOAP.

I would like to see us discuss other transports, but I would like to see 
us do it in a constructive manner that does not bog us down.

-andy