Subject: [weirds] New proposed charter

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:30:48 -0500

Dear colleagues,

I attach below a new proposed charter for a WG.  I've attempted to
reflect what we heard in Taipei: charter for numbers first, with names
to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it.  You may
throw your tomatoes now.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:46:43 -0500

Hi.

Tomatoes...

There are lots of "Internet registries for both numbers and names" that don't expose anything over WHOIS (like the IANA BGP Parameters registry, the Arthritis Internet Registry, etc.) Obviously these are not the registries you are referring to. Luckily you asked for tomatoes and not suggested improvements because I don't know how to better word this. Maybe "for AS numbers, addresses and domain names"? 

O: permit public access to some of the registry database.
P: permit public access to some portion of the registry database
C: Readability (or "subset" or something).

O: "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them in respect both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models  of the respective communities."
P: "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect to what data they contain, and in the operating models  of the respective communities."
C: The repeated reference to "some data" confused me. Actually I thought there was a repeated phrase.

O: "it cannot differentiate among clients and offer different information to different classes of user"
P: ???
C: The above could read that you want to return "Name: Fred Smith" to one set of users and "Name: Billy Bob" to another. I don't have suggested text, maybe something like "different levels of information" or "additional information to different classes of users".
Again, tomatoes!

O: "Various attempts to solve limitations of WHOIS..."
P: Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS..." or "Various attempts to solve some of the limitations of WHOIS..."  
C: Readability.

O: "Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web."
P: "Experimental services that use a RESTful approach to deliver information traditionally offered via WHOIS over the web instead, have been deployed by some registries."
C: Or something. I find the original hard to parse. My proposed is not much better though...

O: "The Working Group shall undertake to determine the general needs of such a service, and to standardize a single data framework."
P: "The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework."
C: Have a little faith :-)

O: "In  addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others:"
C: Over what others? Are these more important than interoperability? Security? Deployability? (not saying that they aren't (or are), but the sentence reads funny).

O: "The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile"
P: "The working group may develop a data profile"
C: Maybe, no strong feelings here.

O: "and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by the needs of name registries." 
P: "and development of the number registry support will not be constrained needs specific to name registries.".
C: A "need of name registries" is that the protocol be deployable. The original reads that you won't be constrained by that :-P IAoP.

W

On Jan 11, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> <wierds-charter-20120111a.txt>_______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:27:30 -0800

Hi Andrew,
>to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it.  You may

Thanks, I'll dispense with the platitudes then. :-)

 From the minutes of IETF 82:

   "There were expressions of support for starting with a smaller problem
   (just number registries) to begin with."

I suggest removing the name registry stuff as it has nothing to do 
with the problem statement and there wasn't any decision to support 
them at the BoF.

Suggested text:

     Internet registries for numbers resources have historically
     maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some of the
     registry database.  Most registries offer the service via WHOIS
     (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide
     web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC
     2622).

I suggest removing the following paragraph as it is marketing:

     "While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in
     common, there are significant differences between them in respect
     both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models
     of the respective communities.  In particular, the number
     registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that
     is common to many domain name registries."

Suggested change:

     Some Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have deployed experimental
     services that provide the registration information services
     traditionally offered via  WHOIS, using a RESTful approach to
     data delivery over the web.

I suggest removing the following:

    "Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more may be
     anticipated in response to the increased deployment of IDNA.
     Three of the efforts have been on the part of number registries."

Suggested change in a sentence:

   The work shall be undertaken with reference to number resources
   registries.

I suggest removing:

   "The data profile shall provide the necessary support
    for operation of number registries."

as it has been stated that this work is for number resource registries only.

I suggest removing:

    "The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to
     permit future development in other registries, including number
     registries and, in so far as it can be accommodated, name
     registries."

Suggested text:

     The work list for the working group shall not include work on
     name registry support, and development of the number registry
     support will not be constrained by the needs of name registries.
     However, when choosing between two otherwise-equivalent options,
     the working group shall prefer the one that is most amenable to
     re-use by name registries, and potential re-use by name registries
     will be a guiding principle of the work.

I don't see any mention of data models in the milestones.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:00:56 -0800

Hello,

In the proposed charter, there is the following requirement:

   "1.  Complete support for internationalization of queries and
        responses, including a standard representation for non-ASCII text
        in queries and responses, and ways to indicate language or
        character set preferences for responses.  The Working Group will
        need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is
        an appropriate selector."

The drafts which have been presented need more work in terms of 
internationalization.  What expertise is desired for the proposed WG 
to deliver on the work items?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:51:43 -0200

On 11 Jan 2012, at 21:27, SM wrote:
Hi,

>> to be supported if we get people to show up and work on it.  You may

<snip>
>    is common to many domain name registries."

	I suggest to remove only part of the paragraph.

	Suggested:

"While name and number registries contain some kinds of data in
   common, there are significant differences between them in respect
   both of some of the data they contain, and in the operating models
   of the respective communities.
"

<snip>
> I don't see any mention of data models in the milestones.

There is, isn't it?

	Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number
    registries to IESG for publication on the standards track.

Regards,
/as

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:15:32 -0200

Hi,

> C: The above could read that you want to return "Name: Fred Smith" to one set of users and "Name: Billy Bob" to another. I don't have suggested text, maybe something like "different levels of infor…

	I think the idea is that if you are an anonymous user you would get:

"Name: Fred Smith"

	But if you are law-enforcement agent or you sign an agreement that you won't abuse the data you could get:

"Name: Fred Smith
email: [email-masked]"

	And if you also are not anonymous you could get more API calls (i.e. rate-limit).

May be:
" WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow different access rates to it".

Regards,
/as

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:21:51 +0100

> May be:
> " WHOIS does not offer any differential service; it cannot
differentiate
> among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow
different
> access rates to it".

That's not completely right, since many name registries as of today
employ measures that return less information to clients, or rate-limit
clients according to their "class". Such differentiation is only
possible by means of their client IP address, obviously - but that is
what many registries have deployed as of today.

Alex

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:26:12 -0200

On 12 Jan 2012, at 09:21, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:

> clients according to their "class".

	No numeric registries. Also RFC 3912 do not support it. Quote:

"5.  Security Considerations

   The WHOIS protocol has no provisions for strong security.  WHOIS
   lacks mechanisms for access control, integrity, and confidentiality.
   Accordingly, WHOIS-based services should only be used for information
   which is non-sensitive and intended to be accessible to everyone.

"

> Such differentiation is only

	With restful services we could use certificates or user-ids (similar to other webservices, i.e. google, yahoo) to authenticate the user.

Regards,
as

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:00:38 -0500

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.  I'm responding particularly to this one,
because I am uncomfortable with the suggestion.

> with the problem statement and there wasn't any decision to support

There wasn't any decsision _not_ to support them, either.  I think
you're quoting selectively.  Immediately after what you quoted, the
minutes say, "There were expressions of support for avoiding making
incompatible systems for name registries, but no commitment to solve
the name registry issues at the same time."  Also, we have this:

    Is there a problem to be solved
        - for number registries?
            There was a loud hum 'yes', and none for 'no'.

        - for domain name registries?
            There was a loud hum 'yes' and some for 'no'.

My impression at the BoF was that people thought there to be a problem
for name registries, but some people expressed very strong scepticism
that the problem could be solved before heat death of the universe.
It isn't unreasonable, however, to note that one of the sceptics has
expressed on numerous occasions, both within and without the IETF
context, a pervasive scepticism about anything that is even remotely
to do with ICANN, and some of the other sceptics were less strident
about this topic.

I am very strongly opposed to the idea that we would charter this work
without mentioning name registries at all.  I think it would be a
mistake to chater this work without allowing for the possibility that
name registries be in-scope, if it turns out that the name registries
show up to participate and appear to have some deployment momentum.  I
get the very strong arguments about ICANN's historical performance in
addressing problems with WHOIS; but if people do show up and decide
they want to do the work (regardless of what ICANN decides to do in
the long run), I think it would waste a lot of time and effort in
rechartering at that point.

Why do you want to exclude name registries from the problem scope,
when the proposal is that we won't do any work on those problems to
begin with?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:20:56 -0800

Hi Arturo,
>     registries to IESG for publication on the standards track.

Ah, I see.  As a nit, replace "registries" with "resources".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:35:58 -0200

I would prefer "number resources" or "numeric resources". I do not which one is better in English.

Cheers,
-as

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:44:56 -0800

Hi Arturo,
> do not which one is better in English.

The English term used used by RIRs is "number resources".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:50:57 -0800

Hi Andrew,
>you're quoting selectively.  Immediately after what you quoted, the

I usually trim content.  It might be viewed as selective quoting, 
misrepresenting the facts, etc.  I could say that it is not the 
intent but then you would have to take my word for it. :-)

Although I have not disclosed my affiliation and interests on this 
mailing list, I gather that the usual participants are aware of these facts.

>to do with ICANN, and some of the other sceptics were less strident

There is a problem for name registries. I am aware of the views of 
one of the sceptics.  :-)   There is some very strong scepticism due 
to ICANN politics.

As a tomato, I'd say that if domain name registries or ICANN do not 
express the wish to solve a problem, it is not up to this group to 
work on it.

>rechartering at that point.

The group has the ability to re-charter.  Compared to the amount of 
time and effort wasted on this topic, a re-charter effort is a drop 
in the ocean.  If the name registries want to show up, now is the 
time to do so.

>when the proposal is that we won't do any work on those problems to

It is better to identify what problem the group will solve and 
explain how it will solve it.  As some of the RIRs have expressed 
their interest in implementing the deliverables, number registries 
are in scope.  They will obviously have to participate in the work as 
that is how the IETF works.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:33:52 -0500

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 09:50:57AM -0800, SM wrote:
> misrepresenting the facts, etc. 

I'm not suggesting you're misrepresenting anything, but you can't
leave out a relevant bit of text and then use the part you quoted as
sole evidence in your argument.  My reading of the minutes (and my
review of the audio recording) suggests to me that there was agreement
that name registries were part of the problem we were confronting, but
that we didn't know what to do about it.  That's not the same thing as
"we won't do anything."

> express the wish to solve a problem, it is not up to this group to

But ICANN did in fact express such a wish, and have contributed a
draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore.  Moreover, we had
an explicit remark from an employee of a name registry (.mx), on the
record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts
too. That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line.  It's true that
there are more RIRs than name registries

> in the ocean.  If the name registries want to show up, now is the

I'm not exactly sure what "this topic" on which we are wasting time
and effort is.  Perhaps you can clarify?  But in any case, I don't
agree that a re-charter is trivial, because if we have to have the
debate (with the rest of the IETF) about what to do with name
registries while we already have other deliverables, then the amount
of time available to focus on those deliverables is reduced.  If we
start out saying, "Name registries are in scope, but we want to focus
on number registries first," then when we go to the rest of the IETF
later with name-registry-appropriate things we won't be surprising
anyone.  If we go later with a recharter, the natural question will
be, "If you were going to work on name registries, why didn't you say
so in the first place?"

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:26:17 -0800

Hi Andrew,
>I'm not suggesting you're misrepresenting anything, but you can't

I did not read it as such a suggestion.

>that we didn't know what to do about it.  That's not the same thing as

I'll be candid.  It is not my responsibility to explain to anyone how 
to find information or where to find information or any IETF 
stuff.  If anyone think that I left out anything relevant, it is up 
to the persons to do whatever they consider appropriate. To spell it 
out, if "you" (and I do not mean you, Andrew) are lazy, it is not my problem.

Decisions cannot be taken during a WG session.  I didn't even nit 
about that.  If "we didn't know what to do about it", we talk about 
it and see whether we can know what to do about it.

>draft -- a draft you are now suggesting we ignore.  Moreover, we had

Actually no.  The path forward is to ask whether there is consensus 
on using draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 as input.

>there are more RIRs than name registries

That's not in the minutes. :-)  However, I would not use that in an objection.

>and effort is.  Perhaps you can clarify?  But in any case, I don't

The usual "string" discussions.

>be, "If you were going to work on name registries, why didn't you say

ICANN and .mx are not enough to make things happen.  What I am saying 
is that name registries is out-of-scope and there is a train leaving 
soon.  I don't know if there will be a next train and when it it will 
be scheduled.  As mentioned above, the rest of the IETF might not be 
happy about having the debate twice.  You might be asked why you did 
not take the first train.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:26:58 -0500

> on using draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 as input.

Since we don't have a WG, I have no idea who'd be in a position to
determine consensus.  Perhaps the ADs.  I offered text for a possible
WG charter that more or less assumed we would use all the drafts that
have been submitted as input.  As near as I can tell, you're arguing
that we should not, unless I misunderstand you.

> That's not in the minutes. :-)  However, I would not use that in an objection.

A large number of specific statements are not in the minutes, because
guidelines for minutes suggest that one should not have complete
narrative minutes.  Besides, there's a complete recording available.

> >and effort is.

I don't see what the waste is, then.  The central questions, to my
mind, are these:

    1.  Do we need to charter a WG?

    2.  Does that WG cover number resources?

    3.  Does that WG cover domain name resources?

It's very well to argue that the WG not cover name resources, but the
argument neds something more, I think, than abusing the name resources
question ("a waste of time and effort").  We have people who want to
work on it, we have an acknowledged limitations about a problem
statement, and we have some similarities with the work that others
want to do.  That is usually the state of affairs where we want to
ensure one gets one interoperable protocol rather than two, or at
least where one wants to see whether that is possible.  The text I
proposed accommodates that while stating that we know what the
starting point is, because we have more fielded PoC systems.

> saying is that name registries is out-of-scope and there is a train
> leaving soon.  I don't know if there will be a next train and when
> it it will be scheduled.  As mentioned above, the rest of the IETF
> might not be happy about having the debate twice.  You might be
> asked why you did not take the first train.

What train is leaving soon?

If your intent is to suggest that the number resource systems are
going to go ahead without the IETF, well, it wouldn't surprise me: as
someone said in the BoF, there are few enough of them that they can
get in a room and agree amongst themselves.  I think that would be a
shame, because I think the protocol would benefit from the sort of
review one gets at the IETF; but if the suggestion is, "Do this on our
schedule, or we'll go away and do what we want," then my suggestion is
indeed to go away and do what you want.  People who come to the IETF
with tight deadlines are inevitably disappointed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: MICHAEL YOUNG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:50:50 -0500

Andrew maybe I can help here,

Architelos has a number of registry and registrar customers, I will
volunteer to review and contribute to this effort and interface with our
customers while I do. This should increase the feedback on the registry
side.

Forking Whois between RIRs and Name Registries doesn't make sense to me.

Best Regards,

Michael Young
M:647-289-1220

On 12-01-12 3:26 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>weirds mailing list
>[email-masked]

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:08:47 +0000

On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> question ("a waste of time and effort").

+1

-andy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:16:20 -0200

I cannot speak for others, but I do not want to go ahead without IETF. I guess the feeling is the same for others.

Regards,
as

On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> get in a room and agree amongst themselves.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:05 -0800

Hi Andrew,
>that we should not, unless I misunderstand you.

It doesn't really matter to me who determines consensus.  If anyone 
believes that it is important to follow process to the letter, I can 
make a suggestion.

I am arguing for no undertaking to solve name registries problems.

I mentioned the draft as part of a path forward.  I provided 
suggestions about the proposed charter that was sent to this 
list.  FWIW, I am looking at the drafts more in terms of what they 
have in common.  And that is to work on a protocol for the number 
resources problem.

If I understand your point, it is that the ICANN has expressed its 
interest in solving the name registries problem through its draft and 
that input should go into the deliverables.  Is there anyone from 
ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this?

>narrative minutes.  Besides, there's a complete recording available.

Ok.  It's not constructive for me to argue about this.

>starting point is, because we have more fielded PoC systems.

If I understood correctly, the above means that the group tries to 
solve a problem (domain name resources) without explicitly saying so?

As for the technical similarities to the work, I'll keep it 
simple.  Is there anyone from .com, for example, who can provide input?

>What train is leaving soon?

The charter.

>with tight deadlines are inevitably disappointed.

I did suggest that they get in a room and produce an RFC.  As none of 
the RIRs supported that alternative, I take it that it is not an 
appropriate alternative to them.  I am not suggesting that the number 
resources registries go ahead without the IETF.  However, if that is 
an alternative they are considering, it would be good if they say so 
on this mailing list as it would save people with an interest in the 
IETF work some time.

The sort of review one gets at the IETF is not free even if the IETF 
people work for free.  It is up to the parties involved to see 
whether they would benefit by doing this work within the IETF.

I did not suggest any tight deadlines.  If this group would like more 
time to "think about it", it would help if someone said so.  There 
isn't a deadline to charter a working group.  I am not saying not to 
move ahead with the charter.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:22:32 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:28 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter
> 
> I suggest removing the name registry stuff as it has nothing to do with
> the problem statement and there wasn't any decision to support them at
> the BoF.

I think it would be fine for the charter to indicate that name registries are out of scope for this run.  I also think it would be fine to acknowledge that we'd really like to do that later, and the success of this first run will inform our decision about continuing into that space later.

>      is common to many domain name registries."

I don't agree that it's "marketing", but I don't think the charter would be harmed by its removal.

>      data delivery over the web.

That seems fine.

> as it has been stated that this work is for number resource registries

I don't think that redundancy is harmful.

>      will be a guiding principle of the work.

I prefer the former text.  I think they basically say the same thing, but the former is more concise.

> I don't see any mention of data models in the milestones.

Good point.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:28:55 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:01 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> context, a pervasive scepticism about anything that is even remotely to
> do with ICANN, and some of the other sceptics were less strident about
> this topic.
> [...]

+1 to all of this message.  As the one beating the drum for clients that really want this information and are willing to apply pressure to get it from more than just the IETF side of things, I think a charter from which one can infer that we are not at all interested in name registry work does us a disservice.

If, after the number registry part of this is done, we feel it's not likely to be worth our time to go down the path of extending the work to the name arena because of unlikely adoption, we can make that decision then.  But I'm opposed to proscribing it up front, explicitly or implicitly.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:31:19 -0800

> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:51 AM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: [email-masked]
> time and effort wasted on this topic, a re-charter effort is a drop in
> the ocean.  If the name registries want to show up, now is the time to
> do so.

This seems to preclude the idea that the name registries see how this works once it's done, like it enough to give it a try, and then come to the table.  I think we should leave that open as a future possibility rather than saying "now or never" when all of the evidence is stacked toward "never" right now.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:01 -0800

> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: [email-masked]

I think that's fine for the first run, but I don't agree that we should say no consideration should be given to name issues while solving number issues.  It sounds like you're pushing very hard in that direction, and I think that would limit the development of some very useful work later.  This would be very unfortunate.

> >What train is leaving soon?

There's no deadline of which I am aware.  Only a desire for progress toward consensus.

> resources registries go ahead without the IETF.  However, if that is an
> alternative they are considering, it would be good if they say so on
> this mailing list as it would save people with an interest in the IETF
> work some time.

Several RIRs were in the room in Taipei.  I infer from this that they do want an RFC and are willing to help with it and want to include others in that process.  And I think they make a fine example for the name registries, even though one could argue that they have totally different motivations.  And I hope it works out that way one day.

-MSK

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:04:20 -0500

>    1.  Do we need to charter a WG?

Yes.

>    2.  Does that WG cover number resources?

Yes.

>    3.  Does that WG cover domain name resources?

Yes. Maybe not initially, but I'd like to be able to discuss working on them without a(nother) chartering fight.

> work on it,

Hello!

I personally find the name resource problem more interesting than numbers, and applicable to a larger groups of folk.
Yes, there is some history / politics here, but...

> we have an acknowledged limitations about a problem

Actually I'd strike "with tight deadlines" from the above, but only because I'm having a rough day ;-)

W

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:20:08 -0500

> I think that's fine for the first run, but I don't agree that we should say no consideration should be given to name issues while solving number issues.  It sounds like you're pushing very hard in…

+1.

> There's no deadline of which I am aware.  Only a desire for progress toward consensus.

And if there is a deadline / a train, I think it would be much faster to get consensus on a charter that allows for the possibility of discussing naming  than ruling it out.

Scope creep is bad, artificially limiting what the WG can discuss to limit involvement, push a specific solution or for various political reasons is worse.

W

---

From: Francisco Arias <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:29 -0800

>ICANN on this mailing list who can clarify this?

FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a few
times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and name
registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work
done here.

Regards,

__

Francisco.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:39:46 -0500

> registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work

There are also folk who are not ICANN employees, but who are involved in the ICANN process for various reasons (from trying to make a difference to believing that you lose the right to kvetch if you are not involved).

W

> Francisco.

---
Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly .
    -- Radia Perlman.

Warren Kumari
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:47:38 -0800

Hi Francisco,
>registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work

Thanks.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jan 2012 07:25:37 -0000

>I think it would be fine for the charter to indicate that name
>registries are out of scope for this run.  I also think it would be fine
>to acknowledge that we'd really like to do that later, and the success
>of this first run will inform our decision about continuing into that
>space later.

Agreed.  It seems very likely to me that whatever works for i18n and diffserv
in number registries should be equally usable in names.  The charter doesn't
mention it, but we need some way to do referrals, whether HTTP redirects or
something else, which should also be reusable.

The data model will certainly be different, and there would doubtless be
other differences, e.g., the way you ask for approximate matches, or the
set of auxiliary things you can query for (handles, name servers, ASNs,
what have you.)

So long as the consideration of name queries is limited to informally
encouraging appropriate pieces to be reusable, I don't see this leading
into any particularly evil tarpits.

R's,
John

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:26:37 +0100

On 12/Jan/12 21:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> The central questions, to my mind, are these:
> 

Yes.

Yes.

>     3.  Does that WG cover domain name resources?

No.

> argument needs something more, I think, than abusing the name resources

It seems to me that name resources enjoy a great DNS that provides a
large amount data types, relevant to various protocols.  Reverse DNS
is not going to support publishing or finding the abuse-mailbox of a
given IP, for example, while that could be specified for domain names.

I don't mean to undervalue the importance of names or routes
maintenance, but such operations are being carried out by fewer people
than DNS lookups.  Perhaps this consideration may contribute to
explain the perceived asymmetry.

jm2c

---

From: Jim Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:41:34 -0500

I was not, unfortunately, in Taipei, but I'd like to step up and say 
I'd like to see this work accommodate name registries.

I represent a name registry (Afilias) and I will participate actively.

Is this possible?

Jim

-- On January 11, 2012 4:30:48 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [weirds] New proposed charter 
--

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:41:43 -0500

> given IP, for example, while that could be specified for domain names.

I don't understand.  What does the DNS itself (either the forward or
reverse trees) have to do with this?

The point of WEIRDS for the name resources is roughly analagous to
that for number resources: to replace WHOIS.  WHOIS for domain names
has very little to do with reverse-mapping in the DNS in practice, as
far as I understand.  Mostly, the whois for name registries is used to
see who has registered a name, to do an out-of DNS check of the
forward mapping settings, and so on.  That is, we are talking about a
registration-data access protocol.  The DNS isn't that, though it is a
distributed database that may depend on the registration database.

I'm not trying to be obstructionist; I just don't understand so far
any of the objections to including name resources as part of the list
of things we may decide to work on if things go well with the
number-resource work.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Smith, Bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:01:48 -0700

+1

---

From: Dave Piscitello <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:11:45 -0800

I'll second Francisco's expression of interest. The work being done here is relevant to me and several others on the list. If my memory is correct, we have been involved from the start.

RIRs have more of an independent path to implementation than the ICANN community has, and this path is largely influenced by policy development processes that involve registries, registrars, and a diverse set of stakeholders. 

We are not exactly agile and, honestly, some of us know this:-) 

We are forced to take the long view on projects like this. As Francisco says, some of the folks whose interests lie in the domain name applicability are willing to commit to developing and reviewing work here. So I'm in favor of a WG, and I'd like the protocol we develop to accommodate names, addresses, and generally any Internet resource that might be administered in a manner where querying for registration information is appropriate.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:00:06 -0800

Hi Jim,
>I represent a name registry (Afilias) and I will participate actively.

Active participation is most welcome.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:21:20 +0100

On 13/Jan/12 18:41, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> The point of WEIRDS for the name resources is roughly analogous to
> that for number resources: to replace WHOIS.

Fine.  Indeed, the proposed charter enumerates some weaknesses of
WHOIS.  Besides i18n, which is very general, they concern the data
model and user's authentication for differentiated services.  Are any
specific use cases being implied?

> WHOIS for domain names has very little to do with reverse-mapping
> in the DNS in practice, as far as I understand.  Mostly, the whois
> for name registries is used to see who has registered a name, to do
> an out-of DNS check of the forward mapping settings, and so on.
> That is, we are talking about a registration-data access protocol.

In addition to that, RIRs' data is somehow being appointed to reflect
who is responsible for networks' (ab)use.  This use case is different.

> The DNS isn't that, though it is a distributed database that may
> depend on the registration database.

I only pointed out that any attribute that doesn't have to be out-of
DNS for some reason can be defined there.  For rDNS that doesn't hold.

So the different use case for number resources is to cope with the
fact that rDNS doesn't work.  Perhaps, we'd better explicitly gauge
what use cases the new WG is going to cover, rather than implying them
by number vs. name measurements.

---

From: Chris Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:54:47 +1100

I am one of the 'several others' who represents a name registry and would be interested in participating in a working group that will work on updating/replacing 'WhoIs' for naming resources (amongst other things). Like Dave, I think there is value in having a consistent way of querying information about Internet Resources regardless of what those resources actually are.

Thanks

c.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012 5:12 AM
To: Francisco Arias
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter

On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote:

> FWIW, yes I'm here (I know other colleagues are too). We have stated a 
> few times, ICANN is interested in a solution for both the number and 
> name registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or 
> reviewing work done here.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> __
> 
> Francisco.
> 
> 
>

---

From: Francisco Obispo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:26:35 -0800

I am also interested in participating in this charter.

If I had to throw some 'tomatoes' I would say that:

* the RESTful interface should provide a standard framework for encapsulating the various 'objects' that could be part of an answer;

* Each interest group, should then work on their own object format so that it can be transported as payload within the proposed RESTful interface. 

This should help us move a bit faster, considering that both Number Resources and Name Resources need a standardized solution soon (new gTLDs, RIRs implementing their own RESTful interfaces, etc.).

Best regards,

Francisco Obispo
Director of Services - Internet Systems Consortium 
email: [email-masked]
Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
Key fingerprint = 532F 84EB 06B4 3806 D5FA  09C6 463E 614E B38D B1BE

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:49:25 -0500

Andrew,

>     1.  Do we need to charter a WG?

It is a convention. There are process consequences, both good and bad.

>     2.  Does that WG cover number resources?

This seems reasonable.

>     3.  Does that WG cover domain name resources?

This is reasonable too, just littered with former efforts, some the
consequences of assumptions as to use cases which proved intractable.

To generalize: There exist some allocators of unique (within some
scope, sometimes globally unique) endpoint identifiers. These
identifiers are used by (partial matching) routing systems and (exact
matching) resource mapping systems. A query protocol to discover some
properties of an endpoint, e.g., the entity to which the allocation
was made, from the allocator of the endpoint, is proposed. A plethora
of policy bells and whistles are to be evaluated for their
scalability, conflicts, and costs. The protocol is minimally capable
of supporting binary data transport, transport over CGN agile
transport, wicked parallelizable, etc., and is known to work where the
number of allocators is on the order of 10^^5.

I'm willing to work on this (again).

Eric

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:30:14 +0000

On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> too.

+1 for .uk too.

> That's exactly why I'm objecting to this line.  It's true that

Huh?

There are five RIRs, and _hundreds_ of name registries.

I note also that the final Application Guidebook for new TLDs requests details of other services provided by the registry with "RESTful whois" now listed as an example thereof.

Ray

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:43:23 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Ray Bellis
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:30 AM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: <[email-masked]>

I'm also willing to participate and contribute. My employer provides whois services for a mix of large and small TLDs. I'm completely OK with the idea of focusing first on RIR needs, but I would like the deliverables to be a useful foundation for later name registry work.

Scott

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:34:45 -0500

> There are five RIRs, and _hundreds_ of name registries.

Oops.  That'll teach me to send mail that's had its composition
interrupted.  What I meant to say had I finished the sentence was,
"It's true that there are more RIRs than name registries that have an
experimental service along these lines up and running.  But that's a
reason to work on their problems first, not to rule the latter's
problems out of scope."

Sorry for the truncation.

Given the discussion we've seen here, I'll have another whack at
charter text soon.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Eric Osterweil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:34:21 -0500

> registries and we are willing to work on developing and/or reviewing work

A very enthusiastic +1...  The people that I work with and I are very interested in both seeing this effort progress and helping.

Eric

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:38:27 +0800

> > record, to the effect that he'd contribute to work on the drafts 

My colleagues and I from CNNIC are also interested in doing something
helpful for the WG.

CNNIC, which is the registry of ".CN" and ".中国/.中國", is willing to
contribute, and support the charter to include the name registries. We would
like to contribute requirements, design or test suggestions for the new
protocol especially in the area of supporting IDN queries and responses, and
participate further positively in the process.

Best Regards,
Linlin Zhou