Subject: [Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

From: chris.ambler at enom.com (Chris Ambler)
Date: Wed Oct 15 14:25:21 2003

A small bit of history - Rick Wesson published a draft a couple of years ago
with a simple XML format for WHOIS exchange. Essentially, an XML
encapsulation of all of the stuff you'd want to see in WHOIS output. I took
that draft and changed it to support what we need today. Rick took a look at
it and said, "Hey, dreg has all of this stuff - why not just use that rather
than make a whole new format?" That made sense to me, as the dreg schema
does, indeed, have everything we need.

The solution is a constrained one. We want to just emit domain information,
and we want to do it in a single transmission - no extra trips to the server
to resolve IDs or handles.

As such, the solution seems to be to emit a resultSet with an answer
containing a single domain, and an additional element with the contacts and
nameservers and such in the same resultSet.

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.

So the fact that we don't re-invent the wheel should mean that this makes
sense then and there. As for the future, it allows us to be open to more of
the features for this and future projects, and to more easily integrate our
WHOIS output with other, larger IRIS-based projects. No?

Christopher

-----Original Message-----
From: David Blacka [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:05 AM
To: Chris Ambler
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 01:08  PM, Chris Ambler wrote:

> Heretical question: if the XSD is just a suggestion, as you intimate, 
> what
> prevents me from breaking normalization and adding the allowance that, 
> for
> example, the technicalContacts element of the domain element may 
> contain, in
> addition to an iris:entity element, a contact element?
>
> Okay, let's say I don't do that (because your objection will be, "yes, 
> that
> breaks normalization, and we'd prefer that not happen), but put the 
> actual
> element in the additional element... is there a procedure whereby I 
> can push
> my XSD back out as the "official XSD for using the dreg:domain inside 
> of an
> answer element for the purpose of registrar WHOIS transmission?" or 
> some
> such?

I might be misunderstanding this whole conversation, but it seems to me 
that you are trying to use the IRIS/DREG1 schema for some 
non-IRIS/DREG1 purpose, and that you are having some difficulties 
because of this.

Is the goal to create a WHOIS interchange format that will interoperate 
with CRISP, or is this an independent effort?  (By interoperate, I am 
thinking that there may be a desire for a registrar to use one of these 
files as the data source for an IRIS/DREG1 server).

If this is an independent effort, then you should just be using the 
DREG1 schema as a starting point.  The DREG1 schema was designed in the 
context of the IRIS architecture.  If that architecture isn't there, 
then the schema isn't going to be ideal.  In that case, you may as well 
as create your own (albeit similar) schema.

If it isn't an independent effort, then we need to make sure we 
understand how your efforts and IRIS need to interoperate.  The schemas 
are not set in stone, but we need to understand the problems before we 
can judge what changes (if any) need to be made to the schemas.

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

---

From: hardie at qualcomm.com ([email-masked])
Date: Wed Oct 15 14:42:56 2003

As I read the charter, this work is out of scope for CRISP.  Note
this line in particular:

"Backwards compatibility with existing administrative directory services
such as WHOIS is not a goal of this effort."

I recognize that what you are trying to do is a bit closer to "make WHOIS
forward compatible with CRISP", but I think the same logic applies.
The group has defined a set of requirements, and it is pretty clear
that this work does not meet those requirements.

This does not mean I want to discourage you from this work, but I would
like you to distinguish it from CRISP.  One way to do that might be to
set up a separate mailing list and provide a pointer to this list describing
the list's purpose; you might also wish to talk to the DREG schema authors
directly.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

At 11:25 AM -0700 10/15/2003, Chris Ambler wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-not43 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43

---

From: davidb at verisignlabs.com (David Blacka)
Date: Wed Oct 15 14:50:42 2003

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.

---

From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed Oct 15 15:57:05 2003

Ted,

thanks for the official disclaimer =) We are implementing a PRIVATE inter registrar data exchange using some of the IRIS structures. the feedback of early implementations might be of some benifit to the draft authors.

So, I'd recomend allowing this little effort to continue here as its as close a review as anyone has attempted to date.

-rick

---

From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed Oct 15 15:58:37 2003

This is exactly where chris is heading, using parts of IRIS over a diferent query mech and transport and that isn't out of scope for this group.

-rick

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:50:38 -0400