Subject: [weirds] Useful and Unuseful Searches

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:26:06 +0000

In looking at our implementation, it occurred to me that there are two
useful searches we do not include:

1) Search of domain names by nameserver name
   It could look something like /domains?nsLdhName=XXXXX

2) Search of domain names by nameserver IP address
   It could look something like /domains?nsIp=YYYYY

This answers the age old question, ³Which domains are served by nameserver
BLAH?² I don¹t think all registries can support both styles (we can¹t do
#2 because we don¹t collect A records). However, these are questions that
seems immensely useful.

On the other hand, we have /entities?handle=XXXX where a user can search
on partial matches for registry handles. As handles are unique Ids defined
by registries and are completely synthetic, I tend to wonder how useful
this query will be. I think it should be taken out.

-andy

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:27:50 -0800

Andy:

>    It could look something like /domains?nsIp=YYYYY

Speaking for myself, I would find both of these search criterion *very*
useful indeed.

- ferg

-- 
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:38:45 -0500

>    It could look something like /domains?nsIp=YYYYY

Is the second one necessary? Wouldn't it be possible to do the
equivalent in two steps? 1) /nameservers?ip=YYYY, then 2)
/domains?nsLdhName=XXXXX with the result from step 1.

Other than that, yes, makes total sense.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:55:12 +0000

>/domains?nsLdhName=XXXXX with the result from step 1.

Yes, that is possible. But it reduces load for everybody to do it in one
step.

-andy

---

From: Alan Maitland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:00:11 -0700

+1

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Feb 2014 13:49:43 -0000

>   It could look something like /domains?nsIp=YYYYY

They sound swell, but I would be reluctant to add them until we hear
from a registry that plans to implement them.

I don't think current versions of WHOIS do it.  For ICANN TLDs,
you can fake it by downloading the zone file and using grep.

R's,
John

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:12:15 +0000

>from a registry that plans to implement them.

Well, I plan to implement #1.

However, we already know that not all registries will be able to implement
all searches or lookups. So I think our best judgement should be used as
to what to put into our docs vs. what ICANN requires or somebody has/has
not implemented over port 43. As I noted, the search by entity handle
doesn¹t make much sense, but it is in our docs because somebody has
implemented it over 43. Certainly ICANN requirements and current
implementations should inform our decisions but those should not be the
final criteria.

-andy

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Feb 2014 09:17:22 -0500

> all searches or lookups.

Oh, sure.  I just don't want to put stuff into the spec that nobody at all 
will do.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:29:06 +0000

>Oh, sure.  I just don't want to put stuff into the spec that nobody at all

Totally agree!

-andy

---

From: Ernie Dainow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:06:08 -0500

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Andy Newton <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ...

> this query will be. I think it should be taken out.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg03215.html

-Ernie

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:50:00 +0000

From: Ernie Dainow <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 1:06 PM
To: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [weirds] Useful and Unuseful Searches

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Andy Newton <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
...

-Ernie

As a handle can reference a particular instance of a registration (example.com registered between 1/1/1991 and 1/2/1992 would have a different handle than example.com registered between 1/1/2001 and 1/2/2002), a lookup by handle seems useful. We have handles on AS and IP registrations for disambiguation purposes. However, there does not seem to be a utility for searches by handle, especially entity handles.

-andy

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:57:45 +0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: weirds [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andy Newton
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:26 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [weirds] Useful and Unuseful Searches
> 
useful
> searches we do not include:
> 

We don't have plan to implement these two searches.

Regards,
Linlin

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:07:11 +0000

> From: weirds [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]

It's too early for me to say anything publicly about Verisign's implementation plans. I did, however, run this by the appropriate development manager and he didn't run away screaming. I'm inclined to include them as long as we can place limits on the number of records returned.

Scott

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:01:23 +0000

On 2/19/14, 9:07 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>It's too early for me to say anything publicly about Verisign's
>implementation plans. I did, however, run this by the appropriate
>development manager and he didn't run away screaming. I'm inclined to
>include them as long as we can place limits on the number of records
>returned.

As with any search, yes you can.

FYI, the ARIN server now implements #1 (we don¹t collect A records, so we
can¹t do #2). It was fairly trivial to implement.
Also, NicInfo was updated to support both #1 and #2. That was also fairly
trivial once the /domains?name=XXXX search was implemented.

-andy

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Feb 2014 13:49:20 -0400

> trivial once the /domains?name=XXXX search was implemented.

Sounds like there's plenty of interest to merit adding them.  This is just 
the kind of confirmation I was looking for.  Tnx.

R's de Guadeloupe,
John