Subject: [weirds] Support for forming a WG

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:49:51 -0600

I just joined the list, so I can't reply with anything to say "me 
too", but I wanted to say that a replacement for the current port 43 
protocol (WhoIs) is sorely needed.  Given the flop of IRIS, I think 
we also have a good example what what the next generation of WhoIs is 
not going to be.

I was part of the CRISP WG and think the work within that group went 
well.  Still the final product wasn't a success (despite delegating 
iris.arpa.!).  This time we need to go a step further, so I think a 
WG is a good idea.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:07:55 -0400

Following up on Ed ...

I think we need to weaken the uniqueness requirement in "a
replacement", as the ICANN gTLD requirement(s) are possibly not
uniform in fact (see the difference in registration policies for .cat
and .com and the whois incompleteness/inaccuracy for motivation), and
differ substantively from the requirement(s) for other legacy TLDs
(ARPA, EDU, INT, MIL, GOV) and from the requirement(s) for iso3166
associated TLDs (ASCII or encoded ASCII). Further, unless there is an
implicit requirement for a distance-from-root limit on the scope of
the post-43-thingie, there are additional substantive differences
going up, as well as down, the tree (whether rooted in MdR or Beijing
or ...).

We already see an insistence upon anonymous access despite the cost of
designing to a size-of-max-botnet DDOS resilience, a requirement that
may not be common to 43+.gov or 43+.cn or 43+.berkeley.edu, to use
"43+." as the post-43-thingie.

I think it is reasonable for the EPP/XML/CNOBI set of assumptions to
find a standard, but with the design scope not limited to these
assumptions, and for similar (possibly syntactically different, and
certainly semantically distinct) mechanisms to be specified where
other requirements prevail.

So I'm for under-specification, and if this means no WG (as WGs are
not without their process issues), then fine. But if we can all get
along without some business models excluding other business models,
then a WG may ... work.

$0.02
Eric

---

From: Patrick Vande Walle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:22:02 +0100

On 13/03/12 19:07, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> (ARPA, EDU, INT, MIL, GOV) 

Following up on Eric.

I have been lurking on this list for some time.  I would point out, to
expand on what Eric just wrote, that the replacement needs to address 
the weaknesses of the exisitng WHOIS.

One thing to keep in mind is that some registries will need to deal with
legal requirements regarding the privacy of personal information. 
Hence, a design that would not take this into account from the start
could possibly fail to  attract many followers.

Another 2 eurocents.

Patrick Vande Walle

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:26:23 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] Support for forming a WG
> 
> Following up on Eric.
> 
> [...]

Hello to the new folks.

I think what might be most helpful is for you to read the proposed working group charter (link below) and comment on whether you agree with them or have specific suggestions for changes.  You might also want to read the discussion threads that followed so you're up to speed on the issues raised by others.

We will be meeting at the end of this month in Paris to try to come to some agreement on the charter in order to form a working group and get started.

The charters that have been submitted can be found in this message:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00476.html

There were numerous subsequent discussion threads, all of which can be found by navigation links on that page.

-MSK