Subject: [Ietf-not43] an exercise in using the archives

From: edlewis at arin.net (Edward Lewis)
Date: Wed Jul 23 16:33:51 2003

I'm still mystified by 3.1.8.1. in the requirements.  So I decided to 
try to read the archives on this.

I found that at one time 3.1.8.1 was !3.1.8.1 - requiring that the 
protocol not do this, fearing that someone might abuse the feature.

The frustrating thing is that the only way I could find anything was 
to use the full archives as a flat file and search for a string. 
"denied before" seemed like a good choice and it picked up some 
instances - like RWR's comments on this.

What's missing are the rationale of why !3.1.8.1 was there in the 
first place, and then how it was flipped to 3.1.8.1.

If there's a fear that clients might get charged for asking a 
question and you want to make sure the protocol guarantees a fee-free 
means for finding out what it costs to ask a question - then 
shouldn't that be the requirement?  Ie., there MUST be a fee-free 
means to ask how much a transaction would cost, whether asked 
anonymously or authenticated as a server-known client?

If there is a discussion I haven't found that I should read, I'd 
appreciate a pointer - or if anyone has any phrases that might key 
word it...
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...

---

From: anewton at ecotroph.net (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed Jul 23 17:53:13 2003

Edward Lewis wrote:
> 
> What's missing are the rationale of why !3.1.8.1 was there in the first 
> place, and then how it was flipped to 3.1.8.1.

It was probably in the -00 version based on feedback from the various 
forums listed in the back of the document (pre-wg input).

The minutes from Yokahama show rejection of it (as my memory serves, 
mostly from one individual since not seen on the list nor in meetings). 
  However, based on mailing list comments that this should be a "policy" 
decision, repurposed text was proposed without dissent.

I think it is worth noting that this is a "protocol requirement".  If 
particular operators find this feature to be useless or worse, they may 
turn it off.  As suggested in 3.1.8.2:

>    Because usage scenarios will differ depending on both policy and type
>    of service, some server operators may want to provide the ability for
>    a client to predetermine its ability to retrieve data from a query.
>    However, some operators will not allow this for security reasons,
>    policy restrictions, or other matters.

-andy

---

From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr)
Date: Thu Jul 24 04:48:35 2003

> try to read the archives on this.

<snippity/>

> appreciate a pointer - or if anyone has any phrases that might key word 
> it...

While I don't have that, I did think of a potential use for this 
feature (while I was explaining how pointless it was to someone, no 
less).  :)

Assume you have a nice clicky-gui CRISP client, and it comes 
pre-configured with a set of servers.  When it starts, it could issue 
a "can I query" to each server, and present either only a list of 
available servers, or grey-out the unavailable servers.  This allows 
the user to send queries to a server that will accept it.

True, it's not strictly necessary, but it can make for a nicer 
end-user experience.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC