Subject: [Ietf-not43] I-D: "Using DNS SRV records to locate whois servers"

From: [email-masked] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:20:38 +0100

A new version of the Internet-Draft is available at
<URL:http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~gw/draft-whois-srv.txt>.

I find it really interesting and I personally much prefer the use of
the SRV rather than a new protocol with a referral mechanism.

Comments welcome, I suggest to Cc: the authors, I do not think they
are on this mailing list.

---

From: [email-masked] (Leslie Daigle)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:33:50 -0500

That is a proposal for a (non-authoritative) convention
for finding whois servers.

This WG is addressing the fact that whois, the protocol,
is insufficient for today's (domain) registry & (domain)
registrant needs.  As a part of proposing the overall
service, this WG is also looking at using the DNS as an
(authoritative) mechanism for finding servers participating
in that new service.

These are different things.

Leslie.

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

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
    is recognizing when you have arrived."
       -- ThinkingCat (c.1983 - 2002)

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:42:43 +0100

[This is also a reply to Leslie Daigle.]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:06:17AM -0800,
 Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 33 lines which said:

> 	This draft is specific to mechanisms for discovering whois
> servers.

I know :-)

>  While this may be interesting work for many members of the
> working group, please remember that compatibility with whois is
> explicitly not required for the CRISP work and that discussion of
> whois should take place elsewhere.

Again, I know. My point was that the mechanisme described in this
draft is not dependant on whois. It can be used with any client-server
protocol. For instance, with IRIS and then, IRIS would no longer need
referrals.

> 	If you are interested in discussing the use of SRV records as
> a discovery mechanism for one of the candidate protocols, 

Yes, that was my idea.

> do that.  Note, however, that discovery and referral are not the
> same.  

IMHO, they fill the same purpose (being able to ask a question without
knowing the actual server which holds the answer).

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:02:10 -0500

First, I'm not sure where Ted's email went.  I certainly didn't get it, 
and it isn't in the archives.

> protocol. For instance, with IRIS and then, IRIS would no longer need

IRIS does make use of SRV for discovery.  It's in the drafts.

> knowing the actual server which holds the answer).

Ted is right.  They are not the same thing.  Examples:

*) An SRV record can only point to a host/port pair, while a referral 
can actually point to a specific entry.  For example, you may use an SRV 
record to discover the authoritative record for a domain, but that 
record may point to another record stating the AUP.  Consult the IRIS 
drafts for an example of this.

*) An SRV record cannot help you find the registrar of a domain, because 
the registrar is not in the DNS delegation hierarchy.  Therefore a 
referral is needed from the registry or registrant to the registrar.  An 
example of this is also in the IRIS drafts.

-andy