From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 2 09:50:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12E821F859E for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:50:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d3ECLXq5F90o for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6C421F85C2 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC8CA1ECB41C for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:50:39 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:50:42 -0000 Dear colleagues, The proposed charter attracted a couple questions, but they were both replied to without a great deal of discussion in either direction. I'm wondering whether this is ready to go. I'm going to send mail to the responsible ADs today asking them what they'd like us to do. If you still want changes to this proposed charter, now would be a good time to speak up (if only to say, "My concerns are not addressed.") Best, A On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:38:19PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I modified the previously-posted draft charter in keeping with what I > understood from the comments last time. Here's what I did: > > - I did _not_ remove the discussions of name registries. It > appeared from the discussion that we have volunteers for names, > and most of the response seemed to be opposed to ruling names out > of scope. > > - I changed "number registries" to "number resource registries". > I didn't use "number resources registries" because it just seemed > too awkward, but I'm willing to entertain arguments about this. I > notice that ARIN stands for American Registry for Internet > Numbers; so "number registry" might still be ok. But "NRO" > expands to "Number Resource Organization", so I think "number > resource" ought to be ok. > > - I attempted to alter the text in line with many of the > suggestions from the list, but in keeping with the previous two > bullets. I think I addressed everything, so long as it did not > seem to be directed to setting name registries out of scope. > > Comments, tomatoes, &c. welcome as usual. If at all possible I would > like to nail this down soon. In principle, if we seem to have > agreement and think we could make some progress, we could request a > BoF until 2012-02-13. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From vesely@tana.it Thu Feb 2 10:27:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DB221F84F3 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:27:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQuU6zdx0RnP for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE7321F84EE for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:27:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1328207257; bh=ZLg441x5eWT8HGaUSgiZemUOl6hiTqVfCjhoqP3j3a0=; l=865; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=S20eX811EIX92tBm9UyMwHUP/SNQwat08eHUsskz1MzBeb0MzydBfz5HB6/IpI1VG KbnNrCpVDpS1ZsNLd+6rSGt9L9qg2sJxAAUBpN/0cso5ZYN0/hVNzCTl/5FPYdfQnU ylu8zHAJ9RSONK4KEyaOQQHdrpnPuEURDTu9h+I0= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:27:37 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F2AD599.00005A62 Message-ID: <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:27:36 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:27:38 -0000 On 02/Feb/12 18:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > If > you still want changes to this proposed charter, now would be a good > time to speak up (if only to say, "My concerns are not addressed.") My concerns are not addressed :-) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00357.html I'm not sure why Carlos answered that we should avoid getting bogged down in the mud of data models. It's not what I meant. The second time I read his post I found he says the same thing as I, namely - abstract commonly appearing objects (addresses, domains, organizations, people), try to reflect currently-in-use formats My only point is that that first deliverable be a BCP, independent of any further work that the WG may do. IOW, if everything else fails, we'll still have done something useful. It may be considered a finger-crossing technique... From carlosm3011@gmail.com Thu Feb 2 10:57:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E27D21F84EF for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kpsHRm7giK5P for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A703A21F84EA for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so1799440qan.10 for ; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:57:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2VoRXio7GVOURSbZguKMoD2zcOcLWbRU51bhGwtjjqk=; b=QiXuHgj/Xs2PjHws+47GDtXYl2t9eLzdxR1buP/FHxQiR2MBLAPeuujJKKp8xo1Tkc /3Rb27+WCffc5T2+eyZFTH+eIf+dOn7Vu77IDsO8bUSVc6s34GHmU0cW2faOf91ERJG9 i5VjU24ti/268AGVhYifFyKUhhXwmI40oUQSo= Received: by 10.224.180.142 with SMTP id bu14mr5855994qab.30.1328209059213; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:57:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from Phobos.local (h-66-166-53-58.lsanca54.static.covad.net. [66.166.53.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r17sm7272483qap.11.2012.02.02.10.57.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:57:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2ADC9F.4050802@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:57:35 -0800 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alessandro Vesely References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:57:43 -0000 IŽm just afraid of spending two years discussing whether a person has a surname and first name, or just a single ŽnameŽ field, or if phone numbers are a single field or should have country, city and subscriber fields. That's what I want to avoid, and thus I proposed just reflecting what is now in common usage among RIRs and other registries. That alone will bring enough discussion up :-) regards Carlos On 2/2/12 10:27 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 02/Feb/12 18:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> If >> you still want changes to this proposed charter, now would be a good >> time to speak up (if only to say, "My concerns are not addressed.") > My concerns are not addressed :-) > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00357.html > > I'm not sure why Carlos answered that we should avoid getting bogged > down in the mud of data models. It's not what I meant. The second > time I read his post I found he says the same thing as I, namely > - abstract commonly appearing objects (addresses, domains, > organizations, people), try to reflect currently-in-use formats > > My only point is that that first deliverable be a BCP, independent of > any further work that the WG may do. IOW, if everything else fails, > we'll still have done something useful. It may be considered a > finger-crossing technique... > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 2 11:08:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C77321F85E1 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:08:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DRxfFsq7u+4 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B790B21F85CE for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBBA61ECB41C for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:07:57 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:08:04 -0000 On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:27:36PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > down in the mud of data models. It's not what I meant. The second > time I read his post I found he says the same thing as I, namely > - abstract commonly appearing objects (addresses, domains, > organizations, people), try to reflect currently-in-use formats > > My only point is that that first deliverable be a BCP, independent of > any further work that the WG may do. IOW, if everything else fails, > we'll still have done something useful. It may be considered a > finger-crossing technique... Hrm. Which of the following do you mean: 1. List specific data objects that will be a minimal acceptable set of things to go in the object mapping for the initial mapping (for number resource registries) 2. List a set of data for which a model is needed, and that may/should/must be present in number resource registries ? If you mean the former, then I propose this text, for the bit about the number resource registry deliverable: The mapping must at minimum include objects for Internet addresses, postal addresses, telephone numbers, organization names, personal names, and redirection links. I'm not personally in favour of it, because I think coming up with the list is actually part of the job, but does that work? If you mean the latter, then it seems to me that it's either splitting the work unnecessarily, or else brings something already rejected in under another name. That is, it seems to me that there is virtually nothing to the job of handing the information on the wire, since we already know that we're planning to use a RESTful framework. Therefore, all the real work goes in coming to agreement about data elements and their representation, and if we got through that much work, then for a given class of registry service we'd be 90% of the way to delivering a full mapping. If, however, you mean that we have to come to a common agreement about data elements common to name and number registries, then that strategy was already rejected by saying we are going to work on numbers first. At least, I think so. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From peter@denic.de Thu Feb 2 11:40:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279DD21F8653 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:40:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mQioWFbxbxNJ for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EC921F8652 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1Rt2W2-0007aJ-5j; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:40:18 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1Rt2W2-00037C-1n; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:40:18 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:40:18 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:40:27 -0000 On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:26:58PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > 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? Not sure, but there seems enough momentum to do so. The RIR case could, however, be dealt with without the WG infrastructure setup and teardown. > 2. Does that WG cover number resources? Obviously, yes. > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? The WG charter should be clear about this. With the latest version (and the previous was no more or less specific) it is unclear to me how strongly particluar name registry requirements could drive the discussion or ought to be cut because of less of relevance for the number resource case. My general concern is that despite the laudable commitments voiced on this list this effort will have difficulties reflecting or collecting the full set of requirements (or non-~) rather than being driven by a certain elephant-in-the-room-program. Nit: the charter talks about registries 'containing' data, which is generally okay, but the usual colloquialism describes the entity running the database as the 'registry', not the db itself. FWIW, start + two months for the requirements document is extremely ambitious and might not even span a face to face meeting under the assumption that the WG was to be instantiated after Paris. The references to RFC 3707 go into the right direction, biut I'm missing a predetermined breaking point should the requirements be too close to RFC 3707 or turn out to be "IRIS over REST". -Peter From peter@denic.de Thu Feb 2 11:45:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9431121F861D for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:45:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDAlpEGf5HiH for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071D021F85EE for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1Rt2as-0007ar-Sj; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:45:18 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1Rt2as-0003DN-PC; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:45:18 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:45:18 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Message-ID: <20120202194518.GU24928@x27.adm.denic.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:45:20 -0000 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:04:57PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > This is mostly just to refresh the expired timer, but I cleaned out some stuff that isn't needed and took some baby steps toward making it focus on number registries without leaving out name registries entirely. > > Happy to take more feedback, or we can just leave it as-is as a starting point for when the WG actually forms. some of these requirements are expressed as - almost operational - requirements to the client, the server or both where I believe it would be more appropriate to address the protocol itself. Example: 2. A client SHOULD support caching of replies. It MAY apply its own default and MAY use a time-to-live provided as part of the reply. really means that the protocol should support caching in the first place. Also, 3. A server SHOULD be able to provide class-of-service facilities for different types of users. At least the following cases need to be considered: anonymous: Users with no prior arrangement for access to the data; typically all available data will be provided in [...] is different from requiring the protocol to support the identification and classification of different (types of) users. Let's keep the boundary between policy and protocol clean, please. -Peter From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 2 11:56:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC7121F864E for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:56:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3csqbupBqOX for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186EB21F8644 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:56:47 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:56:47 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:56:46 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: Aczh4oWuqw29ATz7RSmIuMYlt6UqJAAAEEAQ Message-ID: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:56:48 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Peter Koch > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:40 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter Ah Peter, we meet again. :-) Hope you had a good holiday. > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:26:58PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > 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? >=20 > Not sure, but there seems enough momentum to do so. The RIR case > could, however, be dealt with without the WG infrastructure setup and > teardown. Doesn't that presume there's an AD willing to sponsor the work, or that APP= SAWG would be willing to pick it up? It seems to me to be too big a task f= or one-off sorts of things for which those two venues are more appropriate.= However, you do have a few more grey hairs in your IETF beard than I do..= . > > 3. Does that WG cover domain name resources? >=20 > The WG charter should be clear about this. With the latest version > (and the previous was no more or less specific) it is unclear to me how > strongly particluar name registry requirements could drive the > discussion or ought to be cut because of less of relevance for the > number resource case. My general concern is that despite the laudable > commitments voiced on this list this effort will have difficulties > reflecting or collecting the full set of requirements (or non-~) rather > than being driven by a certain elephant-in-the-room-program. The consensus I remember from Taipei is that we don't want to focus on name= registries at all, but we shouldn't deliberately try to preclude enabling = them either. It seems to me the current text does that, especially "withou= t the requirement that name registries be accommodated", while still creati= ng a non-specific extension mechanism. I think given that we have a few "beta" implementations of this already amo= ng network registries, we won't have any difficulty nailing down requiremen= ts for that case (as well as stuff that's identifiable as out-of-scope); th= ose respective projects will have that sort of information to contribute al= ready, even if informally. For the name registry question it is a little more theoretical, but I imagi= ne the above will be good input to that part of the project when we get to = it. > Nit: the charter talks about registries 'containing' data, which is > generally okay, but the usual colloquialism describes the entity > running the database as the 'registry', not the db itself. Agreed. > FWIW, start + two months for the requirements document is extremely > ambitious and might not even span a face to face meeting under the > assumption that the WG was to be instantiated after Paris. > The references to RFC 3707 go into the right direction, biut I'm > missing a predetermined breaking point should the requirements be too > close to RFC 3707 or turn out to be "IRIS over REST". I agree here too; we probably need a little more time than that. -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 2 11:58:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D5521F863F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:58:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vPPmR7mEUhDO for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3946421F85CE for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:58:06 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:58:06 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:58:05 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt Thread-Index: Aczh4zMCZX2BFRtITpm4aFHMWw3ATgAAbAyQ Message-ID: References: <20120202194518.GU24928@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20120202194518.GU24928@x27.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:58:07 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Koch [mailto:peter@denic.de] On Behalf Of Peter Koch > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:45 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements= -02.txt >=20 > some of these requirements are expressed as - almost operational - > requirements to the client, the server or both where I believe it would > be more appropriate to address the protocol itself. [...] >=20 > is different from requiring the protocol to support the identification > and classification of different (types of) users. Let's keep the > boundary between policy and protocol clean, please. Would you suggest adding a third section that talks about protocol requirem= ents, and just move those into that? -MSK From fobispo@isc.org Thu Feb 2 11:59:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EF621F8644 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:59:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JYWabVQ27fr for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397D221F863F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDD97C9422; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:59:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:2d77:e2ed:6458:ced4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:2d77:e2ed:6458:ced4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D73FC216C6A; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:59:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:59:46 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:59:50 -0000 Hi Andrew, As I stated it in my comments, I think we should be defining a format = for a generic whois response in XML format (at minimum), that it is = capable of transporting the various objects that would conform to a full = response. That should allow us to split between those working on the XML transport = format, and those working on the specific object representation of = registry elements (numbers, names, hosts, contacts, registrars, etc.). Best regards, Francisco On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Therefore, all the real work goes in coming to agreement about data > elements and their representation, and if we got through that much > work, then for a given class of registry service we'd be 90% of the > way to delivering a full mapping. If, however, you mean that we have > to come to a common agreement about data elements common to name and > number registries, then that strategy was already rejected by saying > we are going to work on numbers first. At least, I think so. From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 2 12:03:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0031A21F8636 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:03:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHzzn+c-2ueg for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7342E21F862B for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 515EC1ECB41C for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:03:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:03:24 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:03:32 -0000 Hi, On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 08:40:18PM +0100, Peter Koch wrote: > The WG charter should be clear about this. With the latest version > (and the previous was no more or less specific) it is unclear to me > how strongly particluar name registry requirements could drive the > discussion or ought to be cut because of less of relevance for the > number resource case. This text in the charter was supposed to address that: and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar to 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. Can you suggest an alternative? > reflecting or collecting the full set of requirements (or non-~) > rather than being driven by a certain elephant-in-the-room-program. Well, the charter sort of assumes we more or less have the requirements: CRISP plus the three named principles and "RESTful". Isn't that how it reads? > Nit: the charter talks about registries 'containing' data, which is > generally okay, but the usual colloquialism describes the entity > running the database as the 'registry', not the db itself. I've actually heard this both ways, but if you're happier with "registry databases" I'm not opposed. > FWIW, start + two months for the requirements document is extremely > ambitious and might not even span a face to face meeting under the > assumption that the WG was to be instantiated after Paris. What do you think to be more realistic? > The references to RFC 3707 go into the right direction, biut I'm > missing a predetermined breaking point should the requirements > be too close to RFC 3707 or turn out to be "IRIS over REST". Do you have a suggestion for how to capture that? Best, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 2 13:13:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CEA21F8567 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:13:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDuGoqJEvKD0 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:13:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FDE21F857F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FDCA1ECB41C for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:13:38 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120202211338.GH3187@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:13:45 -0000 Hi, On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Francisco Obispo wrote: > As I stated it in my comments, I think we should be defining a format for a generic whois response in XML format (at minimum), that it is capable of transporting the various objects that would conform to a full response. > > That should allow us to split between those working on the XML transport format, and those working on the specific object representation of registry elements (numbers, names, hosts, contacts, registrars, etc.). > That's what this text in the charter is supposed to mean: The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). If you think it doesn't capture what you want, suggested text would be helpful. Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From fobispo@isc.org Thu Feb 2 13:16:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA67021F8669 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:16:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9b50uN2MMZno for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:16:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86FD21F857F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:16:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85978C9476; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:16:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:2d77:e2ed:6458:ced4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:2d77:e2ed:6458:ced4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C0FA216C6D; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:16:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <20120202211338.GH3187@mail.yitter.info> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:15:59 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> <20120202211338.GH3187@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:16:17 -0000 I think it does, thank you very much. Looking forward to participate in the charter. Francisco On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Francisco Obispo wrote: >=20 >> As I stated it in my comments, I think we should be defining a format = for a generic whois response in XML format (at minimum), that it is = capable of transporting the various objects that would conform to a full = response. >>=20 >> That should allow us to split between those working on the XML = transport format, and those working on the specific object = representation of registry elements (numbers, names, hosts, contacts, = registrars, etc.). >>=20 >=20 > That's what this text in the charter is supposed to mean: >=20 > The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a > service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework > shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an > answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a > RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). >=20 > If you think it doesn't capture what you want, suggested text would be > helpful. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > A >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From francisco.arias@icann.org Thu Feb 2 21:13:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337B021F865D for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:13:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfMEQ0rYwKKD for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1149321F861D for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:13:32 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:13:29 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AcziMpJzYshGLyvxR/ap8MvfdAZbCg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:13:48 -0000 On 2/2/12 11:56 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >The consensus I remember from Taipei is that we don't want to focus on >name registries at all, but we shouldn't deliberately try to preclude >enabling them either. It seems to me the current text does that, >especially "without the requirement that name registries be >accommodated", while still creating a non-specific extension mechanism. However, after Taipei a number of entities, e.g., Afilias, AusRegistry, CNNIC, ICANN, ISC, Nominet, .MX, Verisign, etc. have expressed their interest in developing the name registries part. I believe we have a good case for, at least, not excluding the name registries. __ Francisco. From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 2 21:47:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830D521F85D4 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:47:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.690, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wz744JIKVG-N for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBC821F85D3 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 41004 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2012 05:47:36 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2012 05:47:36 -0000 Date: 3 Feb 2012 05:47:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20120203054714.46387.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120202211338.GH3187@mail.yitter.info> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:47:39 -0000 > The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a > service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework > shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an > answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a > RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). > >If you think it doesn't capture what you want, suggested text would be >helpful. For me, it's fine as far as it goes, but I'm at least as concerned with the questions as the answer. I expect that the data framework for answers of a given type will be relatively (I repeat, relatively) straightforward, approximately the union of everything in the existing answers, packaged as XML or JSON and tidied up a little bit. For questions, there's a variety of issues: what questions a client can ask, how it expresses things like approximate matches (address ranges or prefixes, domain wildcards, regular expressions, etc.), and how the server describes various sorts of answers such as "Here's your data", "Here's some of your data, the answer was too big", "I didn't understand the question", "I understood the question but I don't know the answer", "I might know the answer but I'm not going to tell you", "The answer was too big, ask a more specific question", "I dunno, ask that guy" and perhaps "I dunno, ask those three guys." R's, John From peter@denic.de Fri Feb 3 00:47:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B531921F85AC for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:47:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SPeqCV0FQou for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F4621F8588 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RtEoH-0004DE-FI; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:47:57 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RtEoH-0000gr-BX; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:47:57 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:47:57 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Message-ID: <20120203084757.GB1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:47:59 -0000 Hi Murray, happy new year to you, too ;-) > Doesn't that presume there's an AD willing to sponsor the work, or that APPSAWG would be willing to pick it up? usually, yes. > It seems to me to be too big a task for one-off sorts of things for > which those two venues are more appropriate. Well, for the two, three (or five) RIRs (plus ICANN) to get together, coordinate and document their effort(s) there's still probably no need for a WG. On the other hand it doesn't appear as a blatant waste of resources to me, either. -Peter From peter@denic.de Fri Feb 3 00:59:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936EF21F8601 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mzadTFT5gjZv for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFDB21F85D6 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RtEzg-0004GC-CA; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:59:44 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RtEzg-0000vw-8i; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:59:44 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:59:44 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Message-ID: <20120203085944.GC1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120202194518.GU24928@x27.adm.denic.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:59:45 -0000 On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:58:05AM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Would you suggest adding a third section that talks about protocol requirements, and just move those into that? I'd think that the draft should focus on the protocol and leave specific targets (client or server) for a subsequent protocol document to phrase. So, the 'client should cache' would translate into 'the protocol SHOULD support client side caching of responses' and 'A server SHOULD be able to provide class-of-service ...' would probably translate into 'the protocol SHOULD support optional authentication and authorization'. I18N is a requirement for the protocol, too, as is a referral mechanism. So, I'm not suggesting to drop any of these (maybe later, though ...) but to rephrase. That way much of the policy spin ("A server MUST provide a minimum set of data about a given query.") would be reduced to what is in scope for the IETF: make the data representation interoperable rather than requiring what data has to be present. -Peter From peter@denic.de Fri Feb 3 01:22:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F8521F862B for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:22:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCtjR2getmvn for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B3721F84E2 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RtFLC-0004PC-VW; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:21:59 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RtFLC-0001KE-RT; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:21:58 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:21:58 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:22:01 -0000 On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:03:24PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > how strongly particluar name registry requirements could drive the > > discussion or ought to be cut because of less of relevance for the > > number resource case. > > This text in the charter was supposed to address that: > > and development of the > number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar > to 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. > > Can you suggest an alternative? I wish I could, but let me retry: due top the structured nature of the number resources and the character set they are represented in, many of the issues for domain names seen as input or query strings do not apply to number resources (script/"language" tagging, fuzzy matching). Is the WG still going to address these and when? > > reflecting or collecting the full set of requirements (or non-~) > > rather than being driven by a certain elephant-in-the-room-program. > > Well, the charter sort of assumes we more or less have the > requirements: CRISP plus the three named principles and "RESTful". > Isn't that how it reads? For one, I have just sent some comments on Murray's requirements draft. Admitted that it's still an individual contribution it doesn't look like ``CRISP plus the three named principles and "RESTful"''. You could rightfully say I should stick to the charter rather than a "random" proposal, but I'm receiving mixed signals here. > > FWIW, start + two months for the requirements document is extremely > > ambitious and might not even span a face to face meeting under the > > assumption that the WG was to be instantiated after Paris. > > What do you think to be more realistic? Depends very much on how we separate policy and protocol. Again, ``CRISP plus the three named principles and "RESTful"'' looks promising on one hand, but makes me wonder what the deployment incentive is. I am just not convinced that REST makes this all so much more appealing than BEEP did (or did not, for that matter). With an anticipated start after Paris, having post WGLC discussion by Atlanta (Nov) looks realistic to me. > > The references to RFC 3707 go into the right direction, biut I'm > > missing a predetermined breaking point should the requirements > > be too close to RFC 3707 or turn out to be "IRIS over REST". > > Do you have a suggestion for how to capture that? Well, not completely inside the toolbox of the IETF. Running code is great, deployed code trumps even more. Would enough registries outside the new gTLD program see a benefit in this rather than a vanilla IRIS implementation or whatever whois service they provide today? -Peter From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Feb 3 04:28:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B66521F8625 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 04:28:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3uX2CsNylPEx for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 04:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9369821F8633 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 04:28:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8951B1ECB41C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:28:09 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120203122809.GB4151@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120202211338.GH3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203054714.46387.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120203054714.46387.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:28:11 -0000 On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:47:14AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > For questions, there's a variety of issues: [. . .] Do you think there is something missing from the proposed charter text that ought to be added to make this clear? If so, can you suggest some words? Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From vesely@tana.it Fri Feb 3 07:04:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CDF21F84E6 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:04:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.641 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zh3wAKyQKjE for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:04:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6E221F84AE for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:04:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1328281457; bh=XtcpHbqNG9Jko9sMta/wbU8jbDgfOHvllRsN1YXsAwY=; l=2918; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GP/qmlMJw1aBHz2OKm3/hngieEmBSAZy5sHgcOtLHf8Y2b9zkGXcRm6gxggNrZ5Q3 J4HminN6wRev0v0i/x1UmvF1g5lUBl/Wy8dIuu4ZcT9AK2PFipTB4LuRYm1KbA1U/Q Z+IjJqBxm0ysk6yd/Jei4UFzYdyXOUaJtYZNU2dw= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:04:17 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F2BF771.00000314 Message-ID: <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:04:16 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:04:19 -0000 On 02/Feb/12 20:07, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:27:36PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> My only point is that that first deliverable be a BCP, independent of >> any further work that the WG may do. IOW, if everything else fails, >> we'll still have done something useful. It may be considered a >> finger-crossing technique... > > Hrm. Which of the following do you mean: > > 1. List specific data objects that will be a minimal acceptable > set of things to go in the object mapping for the initial mapping > (for number resource registries) > > 2. List a set of data for which a model is needed, and that > may/should/must be present in number resource registries Sorry, ehm, neither. Perhaps: 0. List the specific data objects that make up the set of things that we are going to map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for our needs. Is that the same as #1? I mean such trivial statements as that they serve whois queries, that ARIN delivers whois referrals and tags the key "NetRange", while the other RIRs call it "inetnum". Stating relevant attributes such as NetName (name), Admin POC (admin-c), etc. Mentioning AS, routes, organizations, persons, roles, and the other elements that you list below. > If you mean the former, then I propose this text, for the bit about > the number resource registry deliverable: > > The mapping must at minimum include objects for Internet > addresses, postal addresses, telephone numbers, organization > names, personal names, and redirection links. > > I'm not personally in favour of it, because I think coming up with the > list is actually part of the job, but does that work? No, it's not what I asked. Yes, coming up with the list is part of the job. The list is primarily concerned with the elements that already exist and _all_ registries currently maintain. That's the content of the 0th deliverable I'm asking for. I know each RIR has tons of documentation about their data objects, but they are difficult to find, reference, and compare to one another. If an RFC documenting such data existed, it could be referenced, e.g., by the abuse reporting drafts that the MARF WG is writing (the Abuse POCs, in particular), or by any other spec that happens to treat that sort of things. I only ask for this extra deliverable as, AFAIK, the underlying work is needed anyway, so there is a chance to remedy a lack with just a little more effort. By contrast, IRIS gave a formal xml schema --while it only /exemplified/ the semantics-- and that work is now useless unless one uses IRIS. Instead, RIRs' databases stay the same independently of the protocol they are served over. I apologize for being obviously unable to express myself properly. I hope this (third) time I'm getting it right :-/ A similar work may be needed for name registries... From andy@hxr.us Fri Feb 3 07:11:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED1021F854C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nFA7IRl+grZe for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1741C21F8539 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsg13 with SMTP id g13so2441884qcs.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.137.21 with SMTP id u21mr2986464qct.23.1328281859607; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from tapvpn1u-156.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hi8sm13381609qab.3.2012.02.03.07.10.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:10:58 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:10:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:11:00 -0000 On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:21 AM, Peter Koch wrote: > I am just not convinced that REST makes this all > so much more appealing than BEEP did (or did not, for that matter). =46rom the standpoint of an implementer with experience with both, the = RESTful web method is much, much more appealing. -andy= From galvin+weirds@elistx.com Fri Feb 3 07:40:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152AF21F858B for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:40:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9VTuvAlW3vZs for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FF921F84E6 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0LYT00HCAQ4X72@elistx.com> for weirds@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:38:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:40:32 -0500 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> To: weirds@ietf.org Message-id: <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:40:14 -0000 -- On February 2, 2012 12:50:39 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan wrote regarding Re: [weirds] New proposed charter -- > Dear colleagues, > > The proposed charter attracted a couple questions, but they were both > replied to without a great deal of discussion in either direction. > I'm wondering whether this is ready to go. I'm going to send mail to > the responsible ADs today asking them what they'd like us to do. If > you still want changes to this proposed charter, now would be a good > time to speak up (if only to say, "My concerns are not addressed.") Just for the record, "my concerns are not addressed." You asked me for an internet-draft, or an acknowledgement of what's there, and I haven't decided yet, so I don't have an alternate suggestion from what I offered before. My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second class citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I interpret the current charter. Jim From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Feb 3 08:05:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36DBE21F8573 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:05:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.645 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1fi82NdhI7O3 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9517521F8498 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BA471ECB41C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:05:50 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:05:50 -0000 On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:40:32AM -0500, Jim Galvin wrote: > My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second > class citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I > interpret the current charter. They are, yes, for sure. That was quite clearly the feedback we heard in Taipei, and the last discussion I had with one of the ADs about this suggested that he can't currently support a charter that puts name registry data on the immediate work path. He suggested a change to the last sentence, for instance, to read along these lines: "Discussion of names is not out of bounds, but explicit work on specific protocol is out of scope until numbers is done." That is indeed the intention. Given this restriction, the normal way this would work is that names-interested people could work together on the mailing list and work on drafts, but they would remain individual drafts until the number work was finalized. If there turned out to be a conflict between name and number priorities, the number ones win. If that means that names can't be accommodated in this protocol, then names need a different protocol. (I can't personally imagine how that could happen, but that's what the rule is.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Fri Feb 3 08:06:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1E821F85AA for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:06:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lzucTrZ+NrjQ for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:06:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975C621F8460 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:06:09 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-ems-proccessed: x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=DgAFbcQdwNjXUK4g0FRQenclKGxYBdW/2DO10dyLl6vf4eDMlxj56p2V UPKXEcpufKR9QH2frfi4Ud1Qkp45Gpq6aRAzYPhrx7bWjOZM0YHkwj7Hl dbi/ULzwpQWfwlY; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1328285170; x=1359821170; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gb4IqnXtGzTchIJ+CUhk0zbtYsVRmrF/WcrHA6IcC8s=; b=CXZx9PFCvewiPB1x0DWVbGw3QO/LMmULAsoQohTH6Zr7PtJxRYM2qVPJ qBrWgNv7QdRIWENlhPLW02th204WBV37kUV5BeQY5Wpb9a9itREcKk3sH 6tAcUD9/EbDO4Ap; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,351,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="5177815" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-001.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 08:06:04 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-001.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::345e:2420:7d3d:208d%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:06:02 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Jim Galvin Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczdRta/UjKKyXIFRYOhYb800N49TAExwJCAAC2/RQD//5HG2w== Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:06:01 +0000 Message-ID: <01B438FF-EA45-43E4-9F4E-480254DB74D3@paypal.com> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info>, <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> In-Reply-To: <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: f+G5ycRZf9UP7k9l/XdE2g== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:06:10 -0000 +1 On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:40 AM, "Jim Galvin" wrote: >=20 >=20 > -- On February 2, 2012 12:50:39 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan wrote regarding Re: [weirds] New proposed charter -- >=20 >> Dear colleagues, >>=20 >> The proposed charter attracted a couple questions, but they were both >> replied to without a great deal of discussion in either direction. >> I'm wondering whether this is ready to go. I'm going to send mail to >> the responsible ADs today asking them what they'd like us to do. If >> you still want changes to this proposed charter, now would be a good >> time to speak up (if only to say, "My concerns are not addressed.") >=20 > Just for the record, "my concerns are not addressed." >=20 > You asked me for an internet-draft, or an acknowledgement of what's there= , and I haven't decided yet, so I don't have an alternate suggestion from w= hat I offered before. >=20 > My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second class cit= izen" to number registries in this work, which is how I interpret the curre= nt charter. >=20 > Jim >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Feb 3 08:11:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787C721F8565 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:11:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.644 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Du2TIssZRID for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:11:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993B521F852D for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:11:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6D4B1ECB41C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:11:44 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:11:44 -0000 On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:04:16PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > 0. List the specific data objects that make up the set of > things that we are going to map, possibly describing a > common factor that is large enough for our needs. That seems like a part of the requirements document, but we could add this to the description of the milestone. Would that help? > I mean such trivial statements as that they serve whois queries, that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not that, surely! We're trying to replace whois, not give us another way to make it hang around! (In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Fri Feb 3 08:14:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763B721F8530 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:14:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l+lZgeM8mBFA for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA02721F852D for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:14:30 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-ems-proccessed: x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=xXGahmh8wjfdWhrTnMwNLsdbADwNUj+qv1s9CEaZ14CIFVU4FtvHDcg2 kcp/Gz21BlJg+UASZtqwJhE5yMI6JZUGskzWnsKaa4yveLPdThwjyLNsJ A5Gpg/NVLlXFkTo; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1328285671; x=1359821671; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DMl11fWgUySE5BcWREwID6FDw1HwaR1OeCeYOE+yzg0=; b=L2QiIJ9OIors3dXyxk+zJUEIfVk9MPFOjvjlfduYsX+waQNAVMwO1mce LdonIiExgW7ib2p+kHnTfLT/lDsa1x03JUeINX/kCsYMz4ODXB9D0Chl0 1NUrisoc3BCN1Qe; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,351,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="5667883" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 08:14:31 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::55d3:9d86:3fc8:dbf4%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:14:26 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Andrew Sullivan Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczdRta/UjKKyXIFRYOhYb800N49TAExwJCAAC2/RQAAAOIzAP//jQ3Y Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local>, <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: Fm0ZQ14X0dz4sD/48W9LBQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:14:31 -0000 So we are limited to what the AD says? A number of us have expressed intere= st in names (and numbers). I won't speak for others but I have no interest = in numbers only or a charter that preferences numbers to names. On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:07 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrot= e: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:40:32AM -0500, Jim Galvin wrote: >> My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second >> class citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I >> interpret the current charter. >=20 > They are, yes, for sure. That was quite clearly the feedback we heard > in Taipei, and the last discussion I had with one of the ADs about > this suggested that he can't currently support a charter that puts > name registry data on the immediate work path. He suggested a change > to the last sentence, for instance, to read along these lines: > "Discussion of names is not out of bounds, but explicit work on > specific protocol is out of scope until numbers is done." That is > indeed the intention. >=20 > Given this restriction, the normal way this would work is that > names-interested people could work together on the mailing list and > work on drafts, but they would remain individual drafts until the > number work was finalized. If there turned out to be a conflict > between name and number priorities, the number ones win. If that > means that names can't be accommodated in this protocol, then names > need a different protocol. (I can't personally imagine how that could > happen, but that's what the rule is.) >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Feb 3 08:34:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9BC21F84EB for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWTPhiO-FZ+e for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC54121F84DD for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52C861ECB41C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:34:31 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120203163431.GF4322@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:34:30 -0000 On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:14:25PM +0000, Smith, Bill wrote: > So we are limited to what the AD says? Well, if you want to get a WG chartered, you have to get it through the IESG. So sort of, yes. > A number of us have expressed interest in names (and numbers). I > won't speak for others but I have no interest in numbers only or a > charter that preferences numbers to names. The overwhelming agreement in Taipei was that we'd be able to come quickly to an agreement on what the requirements were for number resource registries; but that even though there was a problem for name registries there was little hope that we'd come to quick agreement on the requirements for name registries. The IETF in general is leery of chartering fractious, angry WGs that don't produce any results. That's especially true in cases where there was a previous effort (in this case CRISP) that did produce output, supposedly because someone (name registries) had a desperate need; but when that output arrived, none of the supposed needy parties implemented most of it. I think the natural way to solve this is to show progress. Get a WG chartered that works on related issues, and show while those other issues are getting solved that the names problem is also tractable. If the problem turns out _not_ to be tractable, it does not delay the other work; and if it does turn out to be something on which progress is made, then there is no difference whether the document on which progress is made is officially a WG document during that progress or not. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From andy@hxr.us Fri Feb 3 08:38:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D6221F8534 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:38:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T+vWdTd8Ncyt for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CBC21F8517 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so2376562qan.10 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.212.133 with SMTP id gs5mr9788951qab.3.1328287123530; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tapvpn2u-153.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hi8sm13844685qab.3.2012.02.03.08.38.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:38:42 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:38:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <527BA6C6-CC48-48D0-8770-60A0ACF19139@hxr.us> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:38:44 -0000 On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Given this restriction, the normal way this would work is that > names-interested people could work together on the mailing list and > work on drafts, but they would remain individual drafts until the > number work was finalized. Actually, if they were doing this now then the ADs would not likely have = concerns. This is not to discount the work from Francisco, but others helping with = the naming drafts and implementations would go a long way to resolving = the scope of the charter. -andy= From michael@mwyoung.ca Fri Feb 3 08:40:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F390621F84EC for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:40:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yRR5daK5r1-v for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F02B21F84EB for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnq2 with SMTP id q2so2287194ggn.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.169.36 with SMTP id ab4mr18261912igc.3.1328287206662; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.128] ([184.175.22.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l28sm12099826ibc.3.2012.02.03.08.40.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:40:05 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:40:06 -0500 From: MICHAEL YOUNG To: Andrew Sullivan , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter In-Reply-To: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:40:08 -0000 I have to say (and without judgment!) if we don't treat number and name registries concerns/issues with equal consideration, we aren't likely to end up with a protocol that is useable by both parties. If the goal is to have one Whois/RDDS to rule them all, then we are not setting ourselves up to succeed. If the goal is to develop one solution for name registries and one solution for number registries, then we should just split the efforts right now and let the number registries get rolling since they are clearly ready to move. >From monitoring the list, I can see the name registries have made some promises to volunteer but so far they have not been drafting. It would be a sign of good faith if one of the name registry volunteers actually took Andrew's most recent draft and did a revised version with what they feel the language should be, assuming a conjoined effort between name and number registries is what they would like to see. Just sayin,=8A=8A. Michael Young On 12-02-03 11:05 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:40:32AM -0500, Jim Galvin wrote: >> My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second >> class citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I >> interpret the current charter. > >They are, yes, for sure. That was quite clearly the feedback we heard >in Taipei, and the last discussion I had with one of the ADs about >this suggested that he can't currently support a charter that puts >name registry data on the immediate work path. He suggested a change >to the last sentence, for instance, to read along these lines: >"Discussion of names is not out of bounds, but explicit work on >specific protocol is out of scope until numbers is done." That is >indeed the intention. > >Given this restriction, the normal way this would work is that >names-interested people could work together on the mailing list and >work on drafts, but they would remain individual drafts until the >number work was finalized. If there turned out to be a conflict >between name and number priorities, the number ones win. If that >means that names can't be accommodated in this protocol, then names >need a different protocol. (I can't personally imagine how that could >happen, but that's what the rule is.) > >A > >--=20 >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From michael@mwyoung.ca Fri Feb 3 08:41:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7613A21F855A for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:41:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEnW-5C641zD for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:41:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E5E21F84EC for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so2048478ghb.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.185.197 with SMTP id fe5mr9414532igc.10.1328287317375; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.128] ([184.175.22.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ba5sm5496723igb.6.2012.02.03.08.41.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:41:56 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:41:53 -0500 From: MICHAEL YOUNG To: Andrew Sullivan , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter In-Reply-To: <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:41:58 -0000 +1! Michael Young On 12-02-03 11:11 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:04:16PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> 0. List the specific data objects that make up the set of >> things that we are going to map, possibly describing a >> common factor that is large enough for our needs. > >That seems like a part of the requirements document, but we could add >this to the description of the milestone. Would that help? > >> I mean such trivial statements as that they serve whois queries, that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Not that, surely! We're trying to replace whois, not give us another >way to make it hang around! > >(In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing >Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) > >A > >-- >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Fri Feb 3 08:44:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EFE21F8497 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:44:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wPICgAikwwrS for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B9721F855A for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 95005 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2012 16:44:28 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2012 16:44:28 -0000 Date: 3 Feb 2012 16:44:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20120203164405.70447.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:44:32 -0000 >My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second class >citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I interpret >the current charter. There are five number registries, of whom more than half have said they're interested in implementing what we come up with. There's about 900 name registries, of which only a handful have even shown that they're aware of this project. Nobody I know is opposed to building something better than the current WHOIS domain name mess (well, other than some of the crimeware registrars), but the IETF is a voluntary standards organziation. It can't force anyone to do or use anything. So the reasonable approach is first to implement something that will work for for the RIRs who have said they will try it. Once that's under control, we can take a whack at something for domain namea. The charter is not software, it's guidance for humans, and the humans are entirely aware that the more of the RIR design that we can carry over into a domain design, the better. R's, John From shollenbeck@verisign.com Fri Feb 3 08:59:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDF421F8472 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:59:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QKY7tn8r-vmc for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C8121F8525 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTywSZmMXxdLn2VsJhJ2+fZwtHqF91Nhf@postini.com; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:59:20 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q13GxFDo030881; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:59:17 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.205]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:59:15 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:59:14 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Andrew Sullivan , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHM4oop0+bykIMvXU6nNqaYmLcLHJYrqiIAgAACZoCAAAWdgP//rHgQ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:59:13 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D596AFF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> <20120203163431.GF4322@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120203163431.GF4322@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2012 16:59:15.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[29585100:01CCE295] Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:59:21 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:35 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter >=20 > The IETF in general is leery of chartering fractious, angry WGs that > don't produce any results. That's especially true in cases where > there was a previous effort (in this case CRISP) that did produce > output, supposedly because someone (name registries) had a desperate > need; but when that output arrived, none of the supposed needy parties > implemented most of it. I wouldn't say that name registries in general had a desperate need. Much o= f the need came top-down, which is part of the reason CRISP wasn't widely i= mplemented. Having said that, you're still making a valid point. The gTLD registries op= erate in a world where there's a certain amount of overhead associated with= deploying new services. I wouldn't want to see the number registry needs g= o unmet because of layer 9 name registry issues. Scott From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Feb 3 09:03:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD0821F852D for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:03:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uzEjV4QNH2vJ for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2C521F8528 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5ECC61ECB41C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:03:03 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120203170303.GH4322@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:03:02 -0000 On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 11:40:06AM -0500, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote: > I have to say (and without judgment!) if we don't treat number and > name registries concerns/issues with equal consideration, we aren't > likely to end up with a protocol that is useable by both parties. > > If the goal is to have one Whois/RDDS to rule them all, then we are not > setting ourselves up to succeed. I don't think anyone stated that as a goal, partly because there are several people who are sceptical that it is possible. Setting it as a goal would be begging the question. > If the goal is to develop one solution for name registries and one > solution for number registries, then we should just split the > efforts right now and let the number registries get rolling since > they are clearly ready to move. That is a false dichotomy. The goal is to solve the problems that are demonstrated by the fact that several people have running code that does roughly the same thing but that doesn't work exactly the same way. One of those people is a name registry, but a small one. Everybody else is a number resource registry. A way to look at this is that we have running code, and now we need rough consensus. Since the number resources seem to be a more tractable problem, the idea is to bite off that chunk first with the optimistic hope that the number and name problems are similar enough that the protocol can be re-used. If it turns out that hope isn't realized, then we have a good reason to believe that we need different protocols and we haven't done ourselves any harm. So that's the reason to start with numbers first. > Andrew's most recent draft and did a revised version with what they > feel the language should be I don't think we need additional offerings for the charter text: Jim already offered that, and I agree that if we were going to tackle names and numbers at the same time what he sent would be fine. The problem is that we don't have any Internet-Drafts or evidence of interest from the name side of the house except for the I-D from ICANN and some statements that people are interested and will work on it. If CRISP hadn't happened, that might be sufficient; but given that CRISP _did_ happen the way it did, the rest of the IETF (not implausibly) wants more than promises. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From peter@denic.de Fri Feb 3 10:11:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B6221F8572 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:11:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79lR7eYlf4Zf for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08D221F855E for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RtNbc-0006xE-4L; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:11:28 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RtNbb-0002tw-TA; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:11:27 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 19:11:27 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: Andy Newton Message-ID: <20120203181127.GO1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:11:31 -0000 On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:10:55AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: > > I am just not convinced that REST makes this all > > so much more appealing than BEEP did (or did not, for that matter). > > From the standpoint of an implementer with experience with both, the RESTful web method is much, much more appealing. I am happy to trust you with that. Next question is are we reasonably sure that this implementation advantage is likely to turn into a deployment significantly better compared to IRIS? For number resource registries? For name registries? -Peter From andy@hxr.us Fri Feb 3 10:20:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB3221F84CF for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:20:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02MZm1wnEdIZ for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A2B21F856A for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so859393qaf.10 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.175.2 with SMTP id v2mr10161637qaz.69.1328293219142; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tapvpn2u-153.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m20sm14341460qaj.14.2012.02.03.10.20.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:20:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120203181127.GO1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:20:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <80EFF9B1-E600-40FB-A020-2002F2F6CBD0@hxr.us> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120203181127.GO1201@x27.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:20:21 -0000 On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Peter Koch wrote: > I am happy to trust you with that. Next question is are we reasonably > sure that this implementation advantage is likely to turn into a > deployment significantly better compared to IRIS? For number resource = registries? Given ARIN's experience, yes. > For name registries? Well, there have been a group of people on this mailing list from the = network abuse community who have suggested they could use the = information. So is there an advantage for domain registries to serve = this information to end users? If not, that begs the question of why = they even bother with port 43. -andy= From johnl@iecc.com Fri Feb 3 10:24:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA3A21F849C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:24:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.329 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.870, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aCTc0X-++-M8 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:24:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E8721F847C for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:24:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 81432 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2012 18:24:26 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2012 18:24:26 -0000 Date: 3 Feb 2012 18:24:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20120203182404.73842.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120203122809.GB4151@mail.yitter.info> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:24:29 -0000 In article <20120203122809.GB4151@mail.yitter.info> you write: >On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:47:14AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > >> For questions, there's a variety of issues: > >[. . .] > >Do you think there is something missing from the proposed charter text >that ought to be added to make this clear? If so, can you suggest >some words? As another numbered item N+1. A grammar for queries, so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for the query. The goal is not to preclude extensions. The goal is so I use the same URL or whatever to ask "what assignments are in N.N.N.N/M?" or "who is handle XYX123?" R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Feb 3 10:39:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991DE21F85C9 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzmSlIN8CHzH for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663D621F8540 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:49 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:48 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:47 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt Thread-Index: AcziUi2lb/RC86+DSSO+UzdbJadYhwAUOl1Q Message-ID: References: <20120202194518.GU24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120203085944.GC1201@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20120203085944.GC1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02.txt X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:39:53 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Koch [mailto:peter@denic.de] On Behalf Of Peter Koch > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:00 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements= -02.txt >=20 > I'd think that the draft should focus on the protocol and leave > specific targets (client or server) for a subsequent protocol document > to phrase. > So, the 'client should cache' would translate into 'the protocol SHOULD > support client side caching of responses' and 'A server SHOULD be able > to provide class-of-service ...' would probably translate into 'the > protocol SHOULD support optional authentication and authorization'. > I18N is a requirement for the protocol, too, as is a referral > mechanism. > So, I'm not suggesting to drop any of these (maybe later, though ...) > but to rephrase. That way much of the policy spin ("A server MUST > provide a minimum set of data about a given query.") would be reduced > to what is in scope for the IETF: make the data representation > interoperable rather than requiring what data has to be present. Ah, I see what you're after now. And that all seems fine to me. I'll queu= e it up for -03 (or -00 as a WG item, depending on timing). Thanks, -MSK From carlosm3011@gmail.com Fri Feb 3 10:49:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDA521F85D8 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:49:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CmWaB8C1a+yw for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:49:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A8A21F85CE for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsg13 with SMTP id g13so2592948qcs.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:49:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yRlaZtI0Kzti6v4YKwFCMVu8g0XCYoB59dSsGsATAxM=; b=w7MMnbqadllsmQ/KobehTKo3PEth1phI5VtMMLdqLfCoCvptm4Yz0Ada8rcX//dUd8 usz3tlsUQ4u3oT0g612Rv75/15T3rmTWPFSXrx1lN3497oacWNybVOlRiWbYgozjy4rB 2Q18QMmtntfY5VH4xHEF1FIkZN+9jRfIGSQ/A= Received: by 10.229.69.67 with SMTP id y3mr3263722qci.15.1328294975520; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from marcelos-MacBook-Pro.local (h-66-166-53-58.lsanca54.static.covad.net. [66.166.53.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id de9sm14514403qab.9.2012.02.03.10.49.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:49:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2C2C3C.9080204@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:49:32 -0800 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120111213047.GL2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:49:36 -0000 +1 Regardless of its virtues almost no-one in the real world has ever heard of BEEP. REST/HTTP can be used just by anyone with a browser (human consumption) or by any script with an HTTP lib (urllib2, your-preferred-poison-http-lib). JSON output makes it trivial to integrate WHOIS output with rich web apps by means of jQuery/Ajax. Try that with BEEP (*1) :-) Implementation of REST/HTTP is almost trivial using Django (Python), Java or again using your preferred prescription drug. As far as I know there are only a handful of BEEP libraries. The key effort resides in an adequate design of the API rather than on implementation. regards Carlos (*1) Googling javascript / jquery + beep returns results along the lines of 'how do I make my browser beep?' :-)))) On 2/3/12 7:10 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:21 AM, Peter Koch wrote: > >> I am just not convinced that REST makes this all >> so much more appealing than BEEP did (or did not, for that matter). > From the standpoint of an implementer with experience with both, the RESTful web method is much, much more appealing. > > -andy > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From carlosm3011@gmail.com Fri Feb 3 10:58:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AC821F8591 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:58:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtfvZp2VxW5x for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:58:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0962521F858F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:58:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so881844qaf.10 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:58:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5tg4MF9Yp32uxdHeqxB2bCdTFg6XumTm71ZZZoNT93o=; b=xRw/zG+QDndbTRCH8N9ufJnOqsdnmVB0uji+E32W4tBL4IS8c5INIunw8RY+ahm9Lm nPPvFMk5Me5DZL+3B9hKHZo71UzQNpHwPEA5Sv6Ja6ZP1sRO5HkX9aBOZBkBd8AXX5QC rK6PE+8K9Dka73FNJ9olvppkoQJ7YMcYULaDo= Received: by 10.224.185.16 with SMTP id cm16mr10489225qab.0.1328295536586; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:58:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from marcelos-MacBook-Pro.local (h-66-166-53-58.lsanca54.static.covad.net. [66.166.53.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm14566191qaz.7.2012.02.03.10.58.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:58:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2C2E6D.1060600@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:58:53 -0800 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <1B6CB2275AF825240461FD7F@James-Galvin-2.local> <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:58:57 -0000 Hello, I don't think anyone wants to treat anyone as second class citizens. IMO the key is in attacking the more tractable problem first, show results, and then get on with the rest. This is why I more or less like the current charter, that, while not precluding discussion on name registries needs', it strives to take those needs out of the critical path. This does not mean that name registries are left out, in fact, they can contribute their drafts and provide their proof-of-concept implementations just as we number registries did. It just means that the easy problem is to be attacked first, and then the WG, emboldened by its daring success can take on the more difficult problem :-)) regards Carlos On 2/3/12 8:05 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:40:32AM -0500, Jim Galvin wrote: >> My concern is that I don't want name registries to be a "second >> class citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I >> interpret the current charter. > They are, yes, for sure. That was quite clearly the feedback we heard > in Taipei, and the last discussion I had with one of the ADs about > this suggested that he can't currently support a charter that puts > name registry data on the immediate work path. He suggested a change > to the last sentence, for instance, to read along these lines: > "Discussion of names is not out of bounds, but explicit work on > specific protocol is out of scope until numbers is done." That is > indeed the intention. > > Given this restriction, the normal way this would work is that > names-interested people could work together on the mailing list and > work on drafts, but they would remain individual drafts until the > number work was finalized. If there turned out to be a conflict > between name and number priorities, the number ones win. If that > means that names can't be accommodated in this protocol, then names > need a different protocol. (I can't personally imagine how that could > happen, but that's what the rule is.) > > A > From arturo.servin@gmail.com Fri Feb 3 11:15:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64A121F8552 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:15:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ACOze0jHONeZ for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:15:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4B521F84C8 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:15:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so2475415qan.10 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:15:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=9OoINzo8//1MQOFYjLqTLuBWIHYDcUguhgDU8f4qucA=; b=QM7hqnqN4cKp9n6TGmWJMjmsy59M5OOtqX4JUJnTCFAIazdnV0e2K4fDNjLV8X3fiC aaKH/BIYow5uXJ7SJ7cNH4SrkfrVkzs7Ndy+fqIDDcCgfkwxEtLyzao3I2vRhrpyI/Z8 lo7MY71/bt6nb9NR569rAoKPVUlEEbawaeogY= Received: by 10.224.187.74 with SMTP id cv10mr10511284qab.36.1328296531589; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:15:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy ([200.7.85.56]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g13sm13306402qah.0.2012.02.03.11.15.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:15:29 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <20120203181127.GO1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:15:25 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120203181127.GO1201@x27.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:15:32 -0000 Peter, On 3 Feb 2012, at 16:11, Peter Koch wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:10:55AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: >=20 >>> I am just not convinced that REST makes this all >>> so much more appealing than BEEP did (or did not, for that matter). >>=20 >> =46rom the standpoint of an implementer with experience with both, = the RESTful web method is much, much more appealing. >=20 > I am happy to trust you with that. Next question is are we reasonably > sure that this implementation advantage is likely to turn into a > deployment significantly better compared to IRIS? For number resource = registries? > For name registries? Yes, at least to query registration data. We prototyped a server = in a few weeks and a client API in one weekend. There is some road to have a production server and API but it = was not very hard. We even have a couple of beta testers and a couple of = our internal apps are using it to retrieve registration data. >=20 > -Peter Regards, as > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From vesely@tana.it Fri Feb 3 11:16:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0F321F8552 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:16:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwJCfQTGg42B for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD19521F84C8 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:16:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1328296584; bh=HaM7gZ0kPkEcF3BsJpcNAg+cqwp3xZJ2i+1LEef1t0E=; l=1152; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Xd5/PouyVRwgMOXS9yitXaPifHhZC9W+weZ4lK280nb1HSLEoSlB6AjtKWg8LR8fZ X3rDFjMsJnGcDXQd7WSb80O6MOqjGzTw/lAQ7S4uEoXu6jA6sVCTMlHjL+cigfLuTZ cUtH7RJhfnD/1Qiaogiz5dDWq57KZkckyC8Af8Fg= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:16:24 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F2C3288.00003D8A Message-ID: <4F2C3288.2030701@tana.it> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:16:24 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:16:26 -0000 On 03/Feb/12 17:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:04:16PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> 0. List the specific data objects that make up the set of >> things that we are going to map, possibly describing a >> common factor that is large enough for our needs. > > That seems like a part of the requirements document, but we could add > this to the description of the milestone. Would that help? It may be more practical to have two separate milestones, one for the protocol and one for the data. >> I mean such trivial statements as that they serve whois queries, that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Not that, surely! We're trying to replace whois, not give us another > way to make it hang around! Well, we are having this discussion because it /is/ hanging around. Acknowledging it brings good auspices. > (In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing > Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) See? You yourself are willing to keep "whois" even in the protocol's name. Why not just Widely Extensible Internet Registry Data Service or some other backronym? :-) From dave.piscitello@icann.org Sat Feb 4 10:47:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B5A21F8478 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:47:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pU+33U8b30Qh for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A63421F8319 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:47:13 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Arturo Servin Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:47:08 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczjbWhWCwNglo4LRV+6YMQhA3M3Ng== Message-ID: <97AAFB29-FECF-4FAA-A6F0-4F5284F51EB8@icann.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111145100.0b2d90a8@resistor.net> <20120112160037.GC2934@crankycanuck.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112084859.08c28038@resistor.net> <20120112183352.GF2934@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112104714.0ad2e408@resistor.net> <20120112202658.GJ2934@mail.yitter.info> <20120202194018.GT24928@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120202200324.GB3187@mail.yitter.info> <20120203092158.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120203181127.GO1201@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Peter Koch , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:47:15 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > Peter, >=20 > On 3 Feb 2012, at 16:11, Peter Koch wrote: >=20 >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:10:55AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: >>=20 >>>> I am just not convinced that REST makes this all >>>> so much more appealing than BEEP did (or did not, for that matter). >>>=20 >>> From the standpoint of an implementer with experience with both, the RE= STful web method is much, much more appealing. >>=20 >> I am happy to trust you with that. Next question is are we reasonably >> sure that this implementation advantage is likely to turn into a >> deployment significantly better compared to IRIS? For number resource re= gistries? >> For name registries? >=20 > Yes, at least to query registration data. We prototyped a server in a fe= w weeks and a client API in one weekend. We had a similar experience with our RESTful experiments.=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPLX0wAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNMSgIAJ4mNE8jow3/Ew0jd9Pib3Je rsYcNpHDd1Ag6GwDpobNIBAWgWqlmKuTWTfb7a7PgKtnWMBG5iZhlh44Sxy75bZB k126yaZs0S2dmsM115jB4i1DV/XnkFMOazG/7CdESKTEHZy/kxGGf8n89qAMJXem GV6wp1VhWihTqfv4gsM+6EpVOKrnVxBY7VOupsy4BHquhj0Ssf4Bitos+IaYaKcP VlwoHoMdZLsBBlENU07T9t5CeVuC8b2powox0wzLlWyzrNMHz6kWo96EL4d50/5i DrJN0JdiX0txpzfy/bjgw7PVeQ21n+serRGkwwyhtpyo0QXrecz+Kn+8CJxu7qQ=3D =3DCb7l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave.piscitello@icann.org Sat Feb 4 10:52:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5122821F8495 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:52:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f1YGO8Srec2K for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADF821F8493 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:52:50 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Alessandro Vesely Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:52:48 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AczjbjEVYiUEV0GJTVyJA3EJEF7lrA== Message-ID: References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> <4F2C3288.2030701@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F2C3288.2030701@tana.it> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:52:51 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FWIW I really don't care what the "W" stands for, the {E, I, R, D, S} captu= re the critical attributes. "Widely" is fine,=20 I'd be perfectly happy if the "W" is "whatever" so long as name registries = and RIRs are in scope for the work. On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Well, we are having this discussion because it /is/ hanging around. > Acknowledging it brings good auspices. >=20 >> (In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing >> Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) >=20 > See? You yourself are willing to keep "whois" even in the protocol's > name. Why not just Widely Extensible Internet Registry Data Service > or some other backronym? :-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPLX6AAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNur4H/2EFchOff9MkFMWq2tiuR5RR mxVm3koUFuvSywoEt5dr/ynjyP+tGliusdgdg12t0yCpMTKYk0II+DFeU14erotH AO4oNluPwQKyld8lc1sanT5/S+tX5IWjSDTN+goZ8bCOkrOwuAYYLQNhjYgo+ek6 +jLs+r5oHSUF8HeIAeBee26HyWptoHUMK2YzXx7HPiQ8npxHEEuUN6ozUX5Vsd5j XTfGJMpADbUq6wg0fl2syb4q6MDYQYFNOre/TJ+3DCocPoWBJVkp0dckmMt4TdS0 o0LzYmYXFCYeVxxQiO2pPtZXf1E6YUyzU8G+jG0g+24Q4V+RnMehAc9gMd3P3T8=3D =3Dzf/h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From avri@acm.org Sat Feb 4 11:26:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B024021F848A for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:26:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-ftfGgwWFks for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4992A21F847D for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RtlFL-000IVi-O5 for weirds@ietf.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:26:03 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:26:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A13E0FC-7A42-4860-AB9B-9AF985720990@acm.org> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> <4F2C3288.2030701@tana.it> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:26:04 -0000 +1 On 4 Feb 2012, at 13:52, Dave Piscitello wrote: >=20 > FWIW I really don't care what the "W" stands for, the {E, I, R, D, S} = capture the critical attributes. "Widely" is fine,=20 > I'd be perfectly happy if the "W" is "whatever" so long as name = registries and RIRs are in scope for the work. >=20 From johnl@iecc.com Sat Feb 4 11:45:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF4E21F84E1 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:45:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.616 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5yY2XtjnJXX9 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:45:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9E421F84DA for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:45:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 62014 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2012 19:45:46 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2012 19:45:46 -0000 Date: 4 Feb 2012 19:45:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20120204194524.8323.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:45:49 -0000 >(In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing >Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) If it succeeds, people will forget that Whois ever existed. I'd suggest Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. R's, John PS: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Lewis#cite_note-0 From michael@mwyoung.ca Sun Feb 5 21:34:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7A921F8504 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:34:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVsU7N8YNCIm for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359B821F845E for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so9571166iag.31 for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.136.69 with SMTP id s5mr15431120ict.20.1328506496597; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm24578051ibi.2.2012.02.05.21.34.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:34:54 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Andrew Sullivan'" , References: <20120203160550.GD4322@mail.yitter.info> <20120203170303.GH4322@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120203170303.GH4322@mail.yitter.info> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:34:51 -0500 Message-ID: <036c01cce491$0df4ce40$29de6ac0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQMH8qUo0vTU1H/Ym1+sFbPa0DrrvgLARzCOAmb4EBOTj/8SsA== Content-Language: en-ca Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:34:59 -0000 Ok I hear the arguments you are making Andrew, that we start with number registries and do our best to make(or extend) that effort suit the name registries use cases as well. It seems like that's the practical approach given the current state of contributions and efforts at hand - I'm a little surprised we haven't seen more activity from the name registries given IDNs - which I see as a very urgent concern. -Michael -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: February-03-12 12:03 PM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 11:40:06AM -0500, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote: > I have to say (and without judgment!) if we don't treat number and > name registries concerns/issues with equal consideration, we aren't > likely to end up with a protocol that is useable by both parties. > > If the goal is to have one Whois/RDDS to rule them all, then we are > not setting ourselves up to succeed. I don't think anyone stated that as a goal, partly because there are several people who are sceptical that it is possible. Setting it as a goal would be begging the question. > If the goal is to develop one solution for name registries and one > solution for number registries, then we should just split the efforts > right now and let the number registries get rolling since they are > clearly ready to move. That is a false dichotomy. The goal is to solve the problems that are demonstrated by the fact that several people have running code that does roughly the same thing but that doesn't work exactly the same way. One of those people is a name registry, but a small one. Everybody else is a number resource registry. A way to look at this is that we have running code, and now we need rough consensus. Since the number resources seem to be a more tractable problem, the idea is to bite off that chunk first with the optimistic hope that the number and name problems are similar enough that the protocol can be re-used. If it turns out that hope isn't realized, then we have a good reason to believe that we need different protocols and we haven't done ourselves any harm. So that's the reason to start with numbers first. > Andrew's most recent draft and did a revised version with what they > feel the language should be I don't think we need additional offerings for the charter text: Jim already offered that, and I agree that if we were going to tackle names and numbers at the same time what he sent would be fine. The problem is that we don't have any Internet-Drafts or evidence of interest from the name side of the house except for the I-D from ICANN and some statements that people are interested and will work on it. If CRISP hadn't happened, that might be sufficient; but given that CRISP _did_ happen the way it did, the rest of the IETF (not implausibly) wants more than promises. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From warren@kumari.net Mon Feb 6 07:25:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F1721F8644 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:25:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JB3SZbpKQ3a5 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379B321F8699 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [38.96.24.2]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEB611B402A0; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:24:57 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:24:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <57F358D2-C670-4401-B096-2CF00FB0BE1F@kumari.net> References: <20120127223819.GK17728@mail.yitter.info> <20120202175038.GO388@mail.yitter.info> <4F2AD598.1060401@tana.it> <20120202190757.GA94308@shinkuro.com> <4F2BF770.7070705@tana.it> <20120203161144.GE4322@mail.yitter.info> <4F2C3288.2030701@tana.it> To: Dave Piscitello X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" , Alessandro Vesely Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:25:03 -0000 On Feb 4, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > FWIW I really don't care what the "W" stands for, the {E, I, R, D, S} = capture the critical attributes. "Widely" is fine,=20 > I'd be perfectly happy if the "W" is "whatever" so long as name = registries and RIRs are in scope for the work. Also +1. W >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >=20 >> Well, we are having this discussion because it /is/ hanging around. >> Acknowledging it brings good auspices. >>=20 >>> (In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing >>> Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) >>=20 >> See? You yourself are willing to keep "whois" even in the protocol's >> name. Why not just Widely Extensible Internet Registry Data Service >> or some other backronym? :-) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >=20 > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPLX6AAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNur4H/2EFchOff9MkFMWq2tiuR5RR > mxVm3koUFuvSywoEt5dr/ynjyP+tGliusdgdg12t0yCpMTKYk0II+DFeU14erotH > AO4oNluPwQKyld8lc1sanT5/S+tX5IWjSDTN+goZ8bCOkrOwuAYYLQNhjYgo+ek6 > +jLs+r5oHSUF8HeIAeBee26HyWptoHUMK2YzXx7HPiQ8npxHEEuUN6ozUX5Vsd5j > XTfGJMpADbUq6wg0fl2syb4q6MDYQYFNOre/TJ+3DCocPoWBJVkp0dckmMt4TdS0 > o0LzYmYXFCYeVxxQiO2pPtZXf1E6YUyzU8G+jG0g+24Q4V+RnMehAc9gMd3P3T8=3D > =3Dzf/h > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 -- Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly. -- Radia Perlman. From dave.piscitello@icann.org Mon Feb 6 08:36:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBB221F8645 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8QPUQ8p6jxZU for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CF821F862D for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:21 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: John Levine Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:19 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter Thread-Index: Aczk7XUtdkbqCkNOTCOCJ66Q3x9Gjw== Message-ID: <2C213B6C-E3AC-4729-A677-DB648F792BEE@icann.org> References: <20120204194524.8323.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120204194524.8323.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:36:23 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I could go with this, too. On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:45 PM, John Levine wrote: >> (In fact, I'd like to suggest we re-expand WEIRDS as Whois-replacing >> Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. Objections?) >=20 > If it succeeds, people will forget that Whois ever existed. >=20 > I'd suggest Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registry Data Service. >=20 > R's, > John >=20 > PS: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_Lewis#cite_note-0 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPMAGDAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFN088H/jq9e7gaIWJt7uWql7j0TJ0K 4VT2Xy2egXzJx8SQrBPmq+0MI8UKjV7mUH+4RU7cRlJWkIBT77QOu5rlVUNZ8Wvw j8HnmW+Y0QJdh5Gu89IkkVJOqJ5JAvIyyVWz58c+cFDBAW0LTqg2SkYBwuKSDNlQ Yk1Q+34IBjgvKDmMGmAz1wWwy0CMhOP4l18JjzzNzX/0RMQlgLG33xey54qk5Ere oJcRhHKmj7ewl/eo6gQ0iGfVJCCSix1i8w2RS7EO3ISd1V7TEZuPlI7YrjPakQB1 o8mGPwrNZh9znpd/PkqzSc30nttXglPkUVXiuvw+hLw02ADTBOhJBjOMiiLbUqg=3D =3DkGyO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Feb 8 11:21:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C3A21F85A8 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:21:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.607 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDzWalrTs9W4 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:21:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1ECA21F85BE for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5059B1ECB41D for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:21:44 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:21:52 -0000 Dear colleagues, Given the lack of complete agreement on what a charter would be for a WG, we still have some work to do. I was planning to request another BoF slot in Paris. At the BoF, we would try to hammer out the final details of a charter and see whether there is enough agreement for certain to move ahead. If, however, we were able to come to agreement prior to that date, then we could use the time to discuss document issues, optimistically hoping that we would indeed be chartered by the IESG. When I suggested this to some people off-list, however, they expressed concern, because of the difficulty of recovering if a second BoF does not produce results. In particular, it would be very unusual to hold a 3d BoF, and probably if we are not chartered after a 2d BoF then we never will be. The people I spoke to therefore suggested caution and, in particular, suggested we'd be better off just continuing to work on this list. I haven't made the BoF request yet. Does anyone have a feeling about the above? Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Feb 8 11:37:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6D111E8094 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:37:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rgFRcIq-QtI7 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2145B11E8083 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:37:58 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:37:58 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:37:57 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? Thread-Index: Aczmlu6Qp0/J6mvFRKCK83K5CbRkAgAAba+A Message-ID: References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:37:59 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:22 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? >=20 > Given the lack of complete agreement on what a charter would be for a > WG, we still have some work to do. Well, I guess this means I need to read recent traffic again. It seemed to= me that the surprising-but-pleasing expression of interest from name regis= tries suggested that the "leave hooks for names" approach we'd been espousi= ng all along was an indication that we'd be able to satisfy all parties her= e, meaning the current charter or a slight variant of it would be good to g= o. I'll try to do that this evening. -MSK From carlosm3011@gmail.com Wed Feb 8 11:45:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085921F84CD for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:45:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RB1kRnvv5xXL for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DD521F84C4 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so551449yhk.31 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:45:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ojQKHBboHek2nNn41sTDXm5nlgA6IQr86gvSkMPFvA0=; b=CkRudfD/shnfh5mIwSEgU8c/5SVa6a03i3tEvhoeNr+vAPMgitY955kX0uJcwfHcrc eg7TPfH4inMJIZPwU/3EGgIE/UVrZnzZZt8dCWWQCYiRq2ACsefPKVqXsrkmnSaSPoN7 rWOn3GJBSvShjpBv7lUW387tDdX0NkGusyxeg= Received: by 10.236.128.242 with SMTP id f78mr39692604yhi.30.1328730320920; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local (c-76-97-209-205.hsd1.ga.comcast.net. [76.97.209.205]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i12sm441664anm.6.2012.02.08.11.45.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:45:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:45:17 -0500 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:45:22 -0000 I read it in the same way, I thought we were more or less ready to roll... On 2/8/12 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan >> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:22 AM >> To: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? >> >> Given the lack of complete agreement on what a charter would be for a >> WG, we still have some work to do. > Well, I guess this means I need to read recent traffic again. It seemed to me that the surprising-but-pleasing expression of interest from name registries suggested that the "leave hooks for names" approach we'd been espousing all along was an indication that we'd be able to satisfy all parties here, meaning the current charter or a slight variant of it would be good to go. > > I'll try to do that this evening. > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@hxr.us Wed Feb 8 12:00:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AD221E8053 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:00:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71kykdR89Zru for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4E321E802F for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwd15 with SMTP id wd15so1488887obb.31 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.193.2 with SMTP id hk2mr27486826obc.20.1328731229319; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.56] (ip72-196-196-5.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.196.196.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4sm580729obl.7.2012.02.08.12.00.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:00:28 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:00:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> To: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:00:36 -0000 Same here. Seems like rough consensus to me. -andy On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > I read it in the same way, I thought we were more or less ready to = roll... >=20 > On 2/8/12 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:22 AM >>> To: weirds@ietf.org >>> Subject: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? >>>=20 >>> Given the lack of complete agreement on what a charter would be for = a >>> WG, we still have some work to do. >> Well, I guess this means I need to read recent traffic again. It = seemed to me that the surprising-but-pleasing expression of interest = from name registries suggested that the "leave hooks for names" approach = we'd been espousing all along was an indication that we'd be able to = satisfy all parties here, meaning the current charter or a slight = variant of it would be good to go. >>=20 >> I'll try to do that this evening. >>=20 >> -MSK >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Feb 8 14:15:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9608C21F85BE for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:15:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.607 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6gDVeZ-zt2hk for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8982221F85C2 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:15:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EB271ECB41D for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:15:44 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:15:48 -0000 Dear colleagues, With so many people telling me I was being an Eeyore (this is not, _mirabile dictu_, the first time I have heard that), I thought I'd better try again with some charter text. I therefore offer the attached text as a proposed charter for WEIRDS. I have incorporated what I understand to be the thrust of various positions people have taken. I believe I incorporated actual proposed text when it was offered, except in the case where the prior consensus rejected that approach (here, I'm thinking particularly of the suggestions to make name registries and number registries both part of the initial work list; this was strongly rejected in Taipei, and we don't have additional drafts or additional experiments to point to that would undercut that consensus). I also included some changes sent to me off-list, including some by Pete Resnick. Thanks to all those who sent suggestions. If nobody has any objections, I'd like to offer this to the IESG as evidence that we have a group of people willing to work on a well-scoped problem. It still isn't clear to me whether I ought to request a BoF slot or whether we should just press ahead on the basis of what looks like a group of people already having agreed. Are there things we think would benefit from a face to face meeting? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From michael@mwyoung.ca Wed Feb 8 14:25:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BFD21F8514 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:25:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wiEgQACBX0WA for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE19621F8507 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so1754948iag.31 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.144.196 with SMTP id c4mr2059695icv.39.1328739907193; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f26sm988281ibc.9.2012.02.08.14.25.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:25:06 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Andrew Sullivan'" , References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:25:02 -0500 Message-ID: <00e001cce6b0$811632d0$83429870$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKAgXM5t/4GUGFivQAnW4lMYLD5vgIVeyqQAmf1xuQCVlwS4wHwpoVxlIY5atA= Content-Language: en-ca Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:25:08 -0000 Thank you Andrew for all the hard work, it's a tough job bringing this together and you do it well. >From monitoring the list, I don't see why another BOF is needed - of course others may differ,...... Michael Young -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: February-08-12 5:16 PM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Dear colleagues, With so many people telling me I was being an Eeyore (this is not, _mirabile dictu_, the first time I have heard that), I thought I'd better try again with some charter text. I therefore offer the attached text as a proposed charter for WEIRDS. I have incorporated what I understand to be the thrust of various positions people have taken. I believe I incorporated actual proposed text when it was offered, except in the case where the prior consensus rejected that approach (here, I'm thinking particularly of the suggestions to make name registries and number registries both part of the initial work list; this was strongly rejected in Taipei, and we don't have additional drafts or additional experiments to point to that would undercut that consensus). I also included some changes sent to me off-list, including some by Pete Resnick. Thanks to all those who sent suggestions. If nobody has any objections, I'd like to offer this to the IESG as evidence that we have a group of people willing to work on a well-scoped problem. It still isn't clear to me whether I ought to request a BoF slot or whether we should just press ahead on the basis of what looks like a group of people already having agreed. Are there things we think would benefit from a face to face meeting? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Feb 8 14:28:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DEF21F8540 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:28:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYJTc39bhddh for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:28:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA90C21F853A for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:28:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:28:05 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:28:05 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:28:03 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: AczmrzfV/ZEMQ3MqTWioApicb0zfqQAAZamw Message-ID: References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:28:06 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:16 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) >=20 > Thanks to all those who sent suggestions. If nobody has any > objections, I'd like to offer this to the IESG as evidence that we have > a group of people willing to work on a well-scoped problem. I propose that we request a slot, maybe 1.5 hours. If we fail to charter, = or get close to it, by Paris, then it can be a BoF to talk about how to imp= rove the proposal one last time. If we do charter, we use it as our first = meeting. -MSK From dave.piscitello@icann.org Wed Feb 8 14:47:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B6A11E80AA for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:47:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2Pp07p00cX3 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A400111E8083 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:47:06 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andy Newton Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:47:06 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? Thread-Index: Aczms5VKNuuaI2adS1yE5aW0Xx7c0g== Message-ID: References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> In-Reply-To: <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:47:08 -0000 +1 Name registry operators have expressed interest.=20 ICANN has.=20 Consumers of name registration data have. Folks like Andy with principally number registry interests have supported i= nclusion of name registries. I'm not sure what more those of us who are participating for the purpose of= name registry registration data are expected to do. Please illuminate. On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Andy Newton wrote: > Same here. Seems like rough consensus to me. >=20 > -andy >=20 > On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: >=20 >> I read it in the same way, I thought we were more or less ready to roll.= .. From sm@resistor.net Wed Feb 8 15:34:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7079B11E80A6 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:34:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2lahpuutlsA for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:34:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E8F21F84F3 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:34:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q18NY7fX002029 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:34:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328744050; i=@resistor.net; bh=VvbDvDtIKKdDIYbHzcvpDepyX/TcMaJYNcGy+FHEWck=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=oXcMPfZzgf55qimtD7gDLbG/3gExa71yGaxbUwnXUMZtPlVXXiScBqgMfa4k/c8Jr MzIliRXr3BnpYOPGcPl+1PFqv9hO07M57+P/8srxD1OTlfRbpfvSr8p40DbkkWs4uO 4z5Rbl6lWmiXy/7r/EZG7IsOcJohaDvGjEHW0GzE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1328744050; i=@resistor.net; bh=VvbDvDtIKKdDIYbHzcvpDepyX/TcMaJYNcGy+FHEWck=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=vhuULtZG2G50HtZJy00vvxanSSenDWBM2MhwDPv6vAGyjV2sOQY0ZFVwLIFrn7RAS gdncTLH7KkVcgrrMdbtzjZ3+vL1GR1w22IAa50Qce919fJnF8Jv9MsrGX5JMm27+PB 60sxGUPdbD9l31eWe8TwH8lnx/ZeoqSldKgqu0gc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120208151446.088269b0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:33:51 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] Another BoF in Paris? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:34:13 -0000 At 11:21 AM 2/8/2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >not produce results. In particular, it would be very unusual to hold >a 3d BoF, and probably if we are not chartered after a 2d BoF then we >never will be. The people I spoke to therefore suggested caution and, Three BOFs are not permitted. There are individuals who happen to be have an affiliation with number and name registries who volunteered to actively participate in a future working group. If I am not mistaken, the latest round of discussions about the proposed charter has been about refining the scope of the work. I suggest a last round of discussions about the proposed charter (BTW, it was not sent to the list) before moving forward. Regards, -sm From galvin+weirds@elistx.com Wed Feb 8 17:23:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0503711E8076 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:23:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r2z9z+lfjnrk for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A84F11E8075 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0LZ300362QFUQU@elistx.com> for weirds@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:21:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:23:34 -0800 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan , weirds@ietf.org Message-id: <8FA13A33F31502C65749939F@ndss281.external.sdsc.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:23:10 -0000 There was no attached text. Or are you going back to what you had before? If so, I object. I'm only slightly sympathetic to your request for an internet-draft from the name registries as you have from the number registries. You've had some pretty significant support from name registries indicated. That seems pretty conclusive to me. Nonetheless, I'm working on a draft. I'll further point out that although you may have had strong objection at the BOF in Taipei, I submit that in the true IETF way that is also not conclusive. Those who are speaking up now from the name registries were not present in Taipei. It's not fair to judge us based solely on presence at that BOF. If you're going to do that then you need to have another BOF in Paris so we can be present and speak for ourselves. Jim -- On February 8, 2012 5:15:44 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan wrote regarding [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) -- > Dear colleagues, > > With so many people telling me I was being an Eeyore (this is not, > _mirabile dictu_, the first time I have heard that), I thought I'd > better try again with some charter text. > > I therefore offer the attached text as a proposed charter for WEIRDS. > I have incorporated what I understand to be the thrust of various > positions people have taken. I believe I incorporated actual proposed > text when it was offered, except in the case where the prior consensus > rejected that approach (here, I'm thinking particularly of the > suggestions to make name registries and number registries both part of > the initial work list; this was strongly rejected in Taipei, and we > don't have additional drafts or additional experiments to point to > that would undercut that consensus). > > I also included some changes sent to me off-list, including some by > Pete Resnick. > > Thanks to all those who sent suggestions. If nobody has any > objections, I'd like to offer this to the IESG as evidence that we > have a group of people willing to work on a well-scoped problem. > > It still isn't clear to me whether I ought to request a BoF slot or > whether we should just press ahead on the basis of what looks like a > group of people already having agreed. Are there things we think > would benefit from a face to face meeting? > > Best regards, > > A From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Feb 8 17:42:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3421B21F8489 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:42:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.607 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JCxatSXbpQhq for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:42:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDE121F8472 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:42:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC0E61ECB41D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:42:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:42:18 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:42:26 -0000 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:15:44PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I therefore offer the attached text as a proposed charter for WEIRDS. Yes, well, I guess I oughta have attached, eh? Jeez, what a maroon. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wierds-charter-20120208a.txt" Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-02-08 Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, and Barry Leiba Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion 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). While name and number resource registry databases contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol 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. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more might be anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number resource registries. The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 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. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user. 4. A grammar for queries, so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for the query. The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. 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. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial 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 needs peculiar to 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. It is expected that the Working Group would change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry support. Milestones November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt-- From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Feb 8 17:57:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8554A21F8518 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:57:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.607 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VytE99mBB3j2 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181BF21F8514 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 728481ECB41D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:57:05 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120209015705.GB14907@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> <8FA13A33F31502C65749939F@ndss281.external.sdsc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8FA13A33F31502C65749939F@ndss281.external.sdsc.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:57:11 -0000 On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:23:34PM -0800, Jim Galvin wrote: > There was no attached text. Or are you going back to what you had > before? If so, I object. No, just sent. I suck. I suspect you'll still object, but I'm willing to wait for it. For what it's worth, my view is roughly the aphorism that starts, "A bird in the hand. . ." Moreover, to play devil's advocate, if I were on the IESG I would object today to including name registries in scope: the last time I worked for a domain name registry and the subject of Whois replacements came up, I couldn't get anybody in the company to authorize any serious protocol development time or experimental development efforts on the topic (even though everyone told me it was super important, and even though I wasted hours on some ICANN committee conference calls about it). Why should anyone believe it'd be different this time? Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 8 17:57:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49AB21F8514 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:57:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id En2x9dWTKypI for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3017721F8517 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 58381 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 01:57:06 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2012 01:57:06 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 01:56:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:57:11 -0000 >Yes, well, I guess I oughta have attached, eh? Jeez, what a maroon. That's a relief, I thought it was my new glasses. It looks fine to me. First we do numbers, then we do names. Niggle: In this section, I don't understand what "including number registries" is supposed to mean. For "other" do you mean "various kinds of" ? > 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. R's, John From dave.piscitello@icann.org Wed Feb 8 18:42:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0BC21F8445 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:42:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WWnJrUvkHTw for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BB521E8010 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:42:15 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andrew Sullivan Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:42:03 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: Aczm1G7XwkyHz0XoTJ6nAiXLc3mAdQ== Message-ID: <82071EB0-2E10-42A0-BF36-1665C235DCF6@icann.org> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> <8FA13A33F31502C65749939F@ndss281.external.sdsc.edu> <20120209015705.GB14907@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120209015705.GB14907@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:42:21 -0000 Respectfully this is not your decision to make to the exclusion of the expr= essions of interest from so many from the name registry community Sent from my iPhone On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:57 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrot= e: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:23:34PM -0800, Jim Galvin wrote: >> There was no attached text. Or are you going back to what you had >> before? If so, I object. >=20 > No, just sent. I suck. I suspect you'll still object, but I'm > willing to wait for it. >=20 > For what it's worth, my view is roughly the aphorism that starts, "A > bird in the hand. . ." =20 >=20 > Moreover, to play devil's advocate, if I were on the IESG I would > object today to including name registries in scope: the last time I > worked for a domain name registry and the subject of Whois > replacements came up, I couldn't get anybody in the company to > authorize any serious protocol development time or experimental > development efforts on the topic (even though everyone told me it was > super important, and even though I wasted hours on some ICANN > committee conference calls about it). Why should anyone believe it'd > be different this time? >=20 > Best, >=20 > A >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 8 19:21:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8A011E8098 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:21:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lw2xgsPng7rG for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9792911E80BB for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 47451 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 03:21:41 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2012 03:21:41 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 03:21:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20120209032119.9122.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <82071EB0-2E10-42A0-BF36-1665C235DCF6@icann.org> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:21:43 -0000 >Respectfully this is not your decision to make to the exclusion of the >expressions of interest from so many from the name registry community Sheesh. What is so hard to understand about doing numbers first, then names? Numbers are a more tractable problem, and make it more likely that we can work out issues of transport, character sets, query structure, and such without getting totally sidetracked by all of the extra issues that a thousand name registries add. Assuming we get that to work, then we can try to build another data and query model for names. We're not totally dim, we can keep in mind while thinking about the number stuff that we want to avoid approaches that will be unworkable with names. If I were on the IESG (which lucky for everyone, I'm not), in view of the history here I would be extremely sceptical of a WG that claimed it was going to do the scaffolding, number queries, and drain the swamp of name registry WHOIS all at the same time, so I think Andrew's prediction of pushback is likely correct. As an alternative, if there's that much interest and it needs to be done really fast, the name registry crowd could spin up their own WG. R's, John From trung.tran@neustar.biz Wed Feb 8 20:15:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9549421F85CE for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:15:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SzKHUaLdOLfz for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from neustar.com (smartmail.neustar.com [156.154.25.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D4221F85C2 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:15:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neustar.biz; s=neustarbiz; t=1328760957; x=1644120337; q=dns/txt; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Language: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=lv+DEgXPQ8mLUpBfVeGmi RjqXPuLotFIlvboFmzPoeM=; b=jupmhxQxIKkXXuFKqGxZrpbkoQo51ddAMdW5q jFzibBnmxsEKR4ey7Tx0H/iIfE3XOV6j4uWgVLVDjG4tYUnsg== Received: from ([10.31.13.242]) by chihiron1.nc.neustar.com with ESMTP with TLS id J041123128.3378196; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:15:56 -0500 Received: from STNTEXCH02.cis.neustar.com ([fe80::f828:7b2d:14aa:84b7]) by STNTEXCHHT03.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:15:47 -0500 From: "Tran, Trung" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:15:46 -0500 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: Aczm2fWcrIYpJIs/SnCrN6Z0XrOW+AAAxOcQ Message-ID: <5A7695A40CD6D048B455BA5EEE8B01A724CB245024@STNTEXCH02.cis.neustar.com> References: <82071EB0-2E10-42A0-BF36-1665C235DCF6@icann.org> <20120209032119.9122.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120209032119.9122.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en, en-US x-ems-proccessed: x-ems-stamp: G2SOcQzK1GoJDIojY2UnNA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:15:51 -0000 >We're not totally dim, we can keep in mind while thinking about the number= stuff that we want to avoid >approaches that will be unworkable with names= . I appreciate your consideration to avoid unworkable approaches with name re= gistries, but IMHO that's one of the issues. It should not be just to avoi= d unworkable approaches but it should be to find an approach that works rel= atively well for both number and name registries. If name registry concern= s are not to be considered, then there will be perception (real or not) tha= t the solution is optimal for number registries and not as optimal for name= registries. >As an alternative, if there's that much interest and it needs to be done r= eally fast, the name registry >crowd could spin up their own WG. One whois solution for number and a different one for name? Trung From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Feb 8 20:40:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CD921E8017 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:40:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8W4EotdVolU for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A2821E8010 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:40:03 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:40:02 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:40:09 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: Aczm1G7XwkyHz0XoTJ6nAiXLc3mAdQAD6vOw Message-ID: References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> <8FA13A33F31502C65749939F@ndss281.external.sdsc.edu> <20120209015705.GB14907@mail.yitter.info> <82071EB0-2E10-42A0-BF36-1665C235DCF6@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <82071EB0-2E10-42A0-BF36-1665C235DCF6@icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:40:04 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Dave Piscitello > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:42 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in > Paris?) >=20 > Respectfully this is not your decision to make to the exclusion of the > expressions of interest from so many from the name registry community Andrew didn't make a decision. (He doesn't get to make it anyway.) He was= being hypothetical, applying his own experiences. In my view what he has = to say is quite relevant, especially considering the temperature in the roo= m at the BoF in Taipei. The path his charter has us on seems to reflect what came out of Taipei plu= s recent list comments from name registries that are interested in particip= ating. Feels like we're on target to me. I believe we're not trying to exclude name registries; indeed, we're surpri= sed and pleased to see the interest. But they don't form the entire commu= nity of opinion that the IESG considers when approving a charter. -MSK From dblumenthal@pir.org Wed Feb 8 21:05:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522A421E8016 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:05:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TM6WwCKM-7M5 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from PIR-MAIL-01.PIR.com (mail.pir.org [72.44.190.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5340321E8013 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from PIR-MAIL-01.PIR.com ([192.168.27.12]) by pir-mail-01 ([192.168.27.12]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:05:05 -0500 From: Don Blumenthal To: Andrew Sullivan , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:05:02 -0500 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: Aczm6GJwYelknnHyRMW/qiJHKzug6g== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120209015705.GB14907@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:05:07 -0000 Long time lurker, first=8A. I don't follow using a one-off experience as a justification for opposing inclusion of name registries. Why would it be different? Maybe because different Registries would be involved, or technical, financial, and political equations have changed. I can't speak to what resources might be available but, from ICANN sessions, other meetings, and side conversations, I have no doubt that interest exists in the name community for exploring the possibility of protocol alternatives. Don =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D DON M. BLUMENTHAL Senior Policy Advisor .ORG, The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 734 418-8242 | Mobile: +1 202 431-0874 | Skype: donblumenthal |=20 On 2/8/12 8:57 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:23:34PM -0800, Jim Galvin wrote: >> There was no attached text. Or are you going back to what you had >> before? If so, I object. > >No, just sent. I suck. I suspect you'll still object, but I'm >willing to wait for it. > >For what it's worth, my view is roughly the aphorism that starts, "A >bird in the hand. . ." > >Moreover, to play devil's advocate, if I were on the IESG I would >object today to including name registries in scope: the last time I >worked for a domain name registry and the subject of Whois >replacements came up, I couldn't get anybody in the company to >authorize any serious protocol development time or experimental >development efforts on the topic (even though everyone told me it was >super important, and even though I wasted hours on some ICANN >committee conference calls about it). Why should anyone believe it'd >be different this time? > >Best, > >A > > >--=20 >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From dblumenthal@pir.org Wed Feb 8 21:07:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C53C21F8460 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:07:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDobJByAlGdP for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from PIR-MAIL-01.PIR.com (mail.pir.org [72.44.190.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D5821E8013 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from PIR-MAIL-01.PIR.com ([192.168.27.12]) by pir-mail-01 ([192.168.27.12]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:07:21 -0500 From: Don Blumenthal To: John Levine , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:07:17 -0500 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: Aczm6LMtxGXYeVAqRFOeG8dMvL9ooA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120209032119.9122.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:07:22 -0000 A certain Internet governing body has made an art form out of duplicating effort in the Whois arena. I would hope to avoid duplicating that experience. Don On 2/8/12 10:21 PM, "John Levine" wrote: > >As an alternative, if there's that much interest and it needs to be >done really fast, the name registry crowd could spin up their own WG. > >R's, >John >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 8 21:11:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B657E21F84A7 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:11:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.212 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.987, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VKHj90UwJKub for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:11:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B156021F84A6 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:11:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 55732 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 05:11:36 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2012 05:11:36 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 05:11:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20120209051114.12927.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5A7695A40CD6D048B455BA5EEE8B01A724CB245024@STNTEXCH02.cis.neustar.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:11:39 -0000 > If name registry concerns are not to be considered, then there will > be perception (real or not) that the solution is optimal for number > registries and not as optimal for name registries. Hmmn. Could you identify the people who you believe will have that perception, and how many of them you expect to be involved in the WEIRDS WG? It seems likely to me that the WG will be more or less the same people who are on this list now, and I don't see this group has a problem understanding that using the same technology for names and numbers is a good idea insofar as we can. >>As an alternative, if there's that much interest and it needs to be >done really fast, the name registry crowd could spin up their own WG. > >One whois solution for number and a different one for name? I think that would be a lousy idea, but if people are desperate to start on a son-of-WHOIS for names, that's an option. Another entirely legitimate approach is to build prototype software and write drafts on your own, and bring them to the IETF who, experience shows, is happy to work on stuff that actually exists. That's what the dmarc.org group is doing, for example. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 8 21:31:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFA321F84FF for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:31:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbPBKEuKqPKz for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:31:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CA411E8096 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:31:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 74867 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 05:31:02 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=12470.4f335a16.k1202; bh=OJg9lcZPPxuFH+Xfj6ijUejOwsdgtrJf3z1+CGCfQ+I=; b=uAfoaHPZCk779Gs2Aa1URNz7Vh1OkR2wmQIXgf2Af4R+LHmsS1eA+ith5kRUynzKHr0aYawnNpcu37Ix+S6nu2LSRJIsP9AhyrAC9mPFiAjK0B80P6TOspMJ+ls7MsFFz4O8XnmRmcfZZWzdtojZZr8wcQDdd05G0j1/L4ojsuE= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 9 Feb 2012 05:30:39 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 00:31:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Don Blumenthal" In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:31:05 -0000 > A certain Internet governing body has made an art form out of duplicating > effort in the Whois arena. I would hope to avoid duplicating that > experience. Indeed. Remember, the IETF is all volunteers. If you think it's important, don't tell other people what to do, do the work. I don't think that a separate WHOIS for names would be a good idea either, but doing names first, or even at the same time, ain't gonna happen unless the people who claim it's important do the work. R's, John From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 9 05:40:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B87721F86D7 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qTi4ECPLulT for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DCA21F86BE for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q19De5Re002597 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328794808; i=@resistor.net; bh=MnrkQqa43CdNP97CaoqHTHL99wFNcu0qr/4c6JseCZw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=A3kJ54oyE9yMwl3pirm++xQ4sULUfY2pBFUqOxQIynvAxq4VJQS1UaPGz7j5nQgiv DdFS+0ILUBOTGn81nfuqiuGQE2Jfw6y5eNoKvwX4N0f97ymweiwfe9WXizrSVEEfmE rSkoLzSqmHA6FhZfRrdV5nY1lk5F6X91AaWvA0iE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1328794808; i=@resistor.net; bh=MnrkQqa43CdNP97CaoqHTHL99wFNcu0qr/4c6JseCZw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=P26KVRT5J95C5caw1PK/CE/wtUdWQH2WQ8xAC1Phs9T5I09mYWwX2//nXni3umoJk 0aDNvsfHbO8mV3kqzZmluwR+X2w9IecT6xUvNU8DnBmTzKPS912MrTCmou50q3MYwf Z1fqVR8cQgKSBKy9pVdBRWr+7MHBWE3fbQMPOAms= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209044111.093209c8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:28:47 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120208192144.GJ11475@mail.yitter.info> <4F32D0CD.5080203@gmail.com> <40043833-FCED-4D77-9D8C-A9F2041AA5BD@hxr.us> <20120208221544.GP11475@mail.yitter.info> <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:40:13 -0000 At 05:42 PM 2/8/2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >Yes, well, I guess I oughta have attached, eh? Jeez, what a maroon. One of the milestones is: "An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC." I assume that the object specification is "Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries" (last milestone). I suggest removing this milestone. That leaves two deliverables: (i) Draft WEIRDS base specification (ii) Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries If the future working group cannot get work done, it's better to accept that than trying to change course towards some alternative not-well-defined destination. As name registry support can be taken into consideration (re last paragraph of proposed charter), the current text might satisfy the various interests expressed on this mailing list while having a clear set of deliverables. I am not sure what the two objections [1][2] posted recently are about. Is anyone asking for a deliverable such as: (iii) Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name registries Once (i) and (ii) are done, it should not be that difficult to do (iii). Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00418.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00422.html From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 9 05:41:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D20821F872A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:41:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.606 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bHv6TDCLSrk5 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AC521F86B2 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 846271ECB41D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:41:25 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:41:34 -0000 --3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 01:56:44AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > Niggle: In this section, I don't understand what "including number > registries" is supposed to mean. For "other" do you mean "various > kinds of" ? Good catch. The attached (for real this time!) modifies that passage. Colleagues, the attached is a proposal -- not, note, a “decision” -- for a WG charter. Those who do not like this proposal are welcome (indeed, I urge you) to make an alternative proposal, or send replacement text. In this proposal, just as in the last one I sent, I did reject some proposed replacement text from Jim Galvin. The reason for that is very much as others have already suggested: the last BoF seemed to say very strongly that number resource registries ought to come first; number resource registries are in fact making progress on this list rather than just promising to do work in the future; and given both that history, and the population of number resource registries as opposed to the population of name registries, the number issues seem tractable in short order. To those who are arguing that the name registry issues all ought to be milestones from the beginning, I would like you to consider something. Number resource registries have worked on this bottom-up: they have proposals and fielded test systems that demonstrate that progress can be made; all that is really needed is the sort of community review to make things consistent across systems. This is the kind of thing at which the IETF excels. We have exactly one name registry that has proposed anything, and in Internet terms it is tiny (important, but tiny). It is also unusual: it does not so far use the registration protocols that other registries do, it has a massively more heavyweight (not to mention expensive) registration qualification procedure, and at least to date the data-consumer needs that are so important for TLDs are not that pressing in the root zone. Despite the claimed advantages of REST for rapid prototyping -- one of the very reasons why this effort is supposed to be better than IRIS -- we have not seen such prototypes from participants in the name registry community. (For what it's worth, I am working on something in Dyn Labs, but I don't have access to real databases yet. Dyn is an ICANN-accredited registrar.) Jim said he's working on a draft, but nobody else has promised even that much. The proposed charter I offer gives a space for the name registry issues to be hashed out while other progress is made. Those who have spoken from name registries have mostly merely said, "We want you to charter our work," but have mostly not stated what that work entails. That sounds like a top-down plan to me: create the management space and mandate the result, and then set people to work. But we already did that; if you want the result, go implement IRIS. Or, for that matter, whois++ or RWhois. If that's your plan, what reason do you have to suppose the result would be different this time than the last times -- _times_, note -- the IETF did it that way? In any case, I believe that the attached is our best hope for getting a WG chartered on this general topic, and getting enough momentum so that name registry problems can be tackled in future. If you think I'm wrong, please make a concrete proposal. What name registry milestones would you add, when? Remember that you'll need to be able to justify them to the IESG, so you better have your arguments ready. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wierds-charter-20120209a.txt" Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-02-09a Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, and Barry Leiba Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion 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). While name and number resource registry databases contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol 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. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more might be anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number resource registries. The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 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. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user. 4. A grammar for queries, so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for the query. The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit support of other registries including, in so far as needs can be foreseen, name registries. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial 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 needs peculiar to 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. It is expected that the Working Group would change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry support. Milestones November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --3lcZGd9BuhuYXNfi-- From andy@arin.net Thu Feb 9 06:03:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F45121F872F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:03:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1dRL9jwjyZ9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9F521F872D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 1DADC165092; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06CD165081; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:03:31 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:03:46 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: Andrew Sullivan Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCM/curj+5UG0a9RBxVYQthwpY07LuA Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:03:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.153] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:03:48 -0000 On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Colleagues, the attached is a proposal -- not, note, a =93decision=94 -- > for a WG charter. Those who do not like this proposal are welcome > (indeed, I urge you) to make an alternative proposal, or send > replacement text. I hate to do this, but=85 > 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk > access, according to different classes of user. When did bulk whois come into scope? > December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects > that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly > describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of > the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject > to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the > object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case > this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational > RFC. =20 >=20 > April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for > publication on the standards track. >=20 > July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number > resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards > track. There have been two drafts submitted by representatives of the RIRs. One is about the query format and the other about JSON responses to those q= ueries. How do those map into this set of milestones? Which one is a base specifica= tion? And do we really need a separate draft describing the objects being mapped = vs one that does the mapping? -andy From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 9 06:41:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C53421F8713 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:41:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qj2ojVV-pIRl for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D080021F8712 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q19EfjIB006734 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:41:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328798509; i=@resistor.net; bh=mUBhIJzaQXk0+rDxRlEHgtnx/EoH2Pvq1JH4PzmAbuo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=wVtEaS6SyFbaR9IvDRxFcdd7aKjFGgVjy1AYNs+tomZGpZiifurDsVMxGhkMX8Nme I/+pggBkAXpt9M0iHI5VqntRjZksDLI58n1jdE0BTrGMhjm5karqocWF4Yz4ucIeya A92UYCjXLTEb5wnw18d+K+/WFCsygeLpt5jsrZ2k= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1328798509; i=@resistor.net; bh=mUBhIJzaQXk0+rDxRlEHgtnx/EoH2Pvq1JH4PzmAbuo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=uXEojppS5wQxL6DwjbLPa0KfpQVVutk3ExPk+tmDQR/ODqrfZ+1eIOK8xj+qtwthh 2R8qp4nJx06DULOMRVTN1MzYdzDQKKCoqkw6GgBg1lTR2SIHpzoJKUA4T134GRtuP+ UGEjaddyijXOFRnCgGZBEVCyHmeOCD9nbFd9rbF4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209062552.092c93a8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:40:55 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:41:54 -0000 At 06:03 AM 2/9/2012, Andy Newton wrote: >When did bulk whois come into scope? The "including bulk access" could be dropped from the proposed charter as it is unrelated to the protocol a future working group might work on. BTW, I read the first priority as internationalization being optional if the working group does not have the expertise to do so. Is my assumption correct? Regards, -sm From peter@denic.de Thu Feb 9 06:48:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5B521F85C9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:48:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aKZ-IPrgcHsk for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA4021F85C5 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RvVIX-0006PD-Q6; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:33 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RvVIX-0004TM-MH; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:33 +0100 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:48:33 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <20120209144833.GB1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:48:36 -0000 Andrew, > for a WG charter. Those who do not like this proposal are welcome > (indeed, I urge you) to make an alternative proposal, or send > replacement text. i think this is on the right track. Especially the treatment of name registries reflects not only the discussion in Taipei, but also the status on this list. Therefore it is also appropriate to not have a name registry document on the deliverables list. > Number resource registries have worked on this bottom-up: they have > proposals and fielded test systems that demonstrate that progress can > be made; all that is really needed is the sort of community review to > make things consistent across systems. This is the kind of thing at > which the IETF excels. Also, this is not only about running code, but also about real deployment and deployment of optional parts. Otherwise I'd have to disagree with the observation that IRIS was a failure given that I know of a registry that has a successfully deployed DCHK implementation. > The proposed charter I offer gives a space for the name registry > issues to be hashed out while other progress is made. Those who have I believe this is absolutely sufficient. > WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form > text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to > "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. > Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output > format, although the addition of data elements changes the output > and may cause problems for parsers of the data. It has been observed that the absence of easy-to-parse output is considered a feature by some in the name registry business and obfuscation is deliberate. > without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In > addition, the following three priorities take precedence over > others from RFC 3707: observing ;-) that the three priorities are numbered 1 .. 4 ... > 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. Without significant participation from > internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but > impossible to meet. > > 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall > protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. > > 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk > access, according to different classes of user. ... i share Andy's confusion re: bulk access. > 4. A grammar for queries, so that all servers that support a > given kind of query accept the same syntax for the query. ... i'm not sure i understand why this is spelled out explicitly. Whois has seen lots of proprietary extensions, but isn't (4) already covered by (2)? > The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or > object format) to provide the support for name registries to use > the protocol. The initial 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 needs peculiar > to 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, > relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but > actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the > beginning of work. It is expected that the Working Group would > change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group > were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry > support. I support this. > Milestones > > November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for > publication as Informational RFC. > > December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects > that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly > describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of > the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject > to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the > object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case > this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational > RFC. > > April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for > publication on the standards track. > > July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number > resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards > track. Makes sense to me. -Peter From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 9 06:54:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBBA21F86D0 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:54:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.606 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p6ufU7NBU7Jj for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF78E21F865F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:54:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 338671ECB41D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:54:10 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:54:24 -0000 On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:03:45PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: > > 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk > > access, according to different classes of user. > > When did bulk whois come into scope? That exact sentence has been there since the first version of any proposed charter. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00220.html. I guess people wanted it. > > > December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects > > that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly > > describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of > > the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject > > to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the > > object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case > > this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational > > RFC. > > > > April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for > > publication on the standards track. > > > > July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number > > resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards > > track. > > There have been two drafts submitted by representatives of the RIRs. > One is about the query format and the other about JSON responses to those queries. > > How do those map into this set of milestones? Which one is a base specification? > It seems to me they both are: one is the query side and the other the response side. I don't think they need to be one document, but it seems they would have to go up together. > And do we really need a separate draft describing the objects being mapped vs one that does the mapping? > I don't think so, but we had a strong argument in favour of it (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00380.html). The basic idea of the way the first of those is written is to solve that problem: basically, if the WG fails to come to agreement on the actual protocol, then we can publish something else that describes the objects. The "describe the objects" is a necessary part of the mapping anyway, it seemed to me, so I figured there was no risk in accepting this. I'm not wedded to it, but I guess Alessandro is. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From andy@hxr.us Thu Feb 9 07:18:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EFA21F8663 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:18:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.625, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O-M0G0ruMtVI for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CCE21F8622 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsg13 with SMTP id g13so1173541qcs.31 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:18:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.135.83 with SMTP id m19mr1500269qct.43.1328800734591; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:18:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tapvpn2u-153.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g9sm6287742qad.16.2012.02.09.07.18.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:18:52 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:18:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5UhOpfMjfyKJvfw+H3GGfaq6eM1VXbKnHQL0UTImCb/POPbjmITHUlnVavnV5GGIbKDTL Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:18:56 -0000 On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:03:45PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: >>> 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk >>> access, according to different classes of user. >>=20 >> When did bulk whois come into scope? >=20 > That exact sentence has been there since the first version of any > proposed charter. See > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00220.html. I > guess people wanted it. Then I take the blame for not noticing this before. However, I think it = is out of scope. Not that I mind working on a standard for such a thing, = but the needs for bulk whois are a much different critter than for = regular whois. >>=20 >> There have been two drafts submitted by representatives of the RIRs. >> One is about the query format and the other about JSON responses to = those queries. >>=20 >> How do those map into this set of milestones? Which one is a base = specification? >>=20 >=20 > It seems to me they both are: one is the query side and the other the > response side. I don't think they need to be one document, but it > seems they would have to go up together. That works for me. >> And do we really need a separate draft describing the objects being = mapped vs one that does the mapping? >>=20 >=20 > I don't think so, but we had a strong argument in favour of it (see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00380.html). > The basic idea of the way the first of those is written is to solve > that problem: basically, if the WG fails to come to agreement on the > actual protocol, then we can publish something else that describes the > objects. The "describe the objects" is a necessary part of the > mapping anyway, it seemed to me, so I figured there was no risk in > accepting this. I'm not wedded to it, but I guess Alessandro is. Can I ask that those who think this is a necessary step look at the RIR = JSON response draft and explain how we are concretely benefited by a = textual abstraction of that information? And if the benefit is the = analysis of the different data elements, would a working group report by = a designee or design team be good enough to drive the technical = specifications forward? -andy From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Thu Feb 9 07:19:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CB721F85DD for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:19:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GaN6GoU4HYrz for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423A321F8567 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:19:16 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:MIME-Version: X-CFilter; b=BdlFzkfIEgxW9lATj1VxeQ2IHj9rR1rrJKtFjVAMBYwLNtKMKn7FVUUY 6gz7hNRks57QeB8Gbe0Z7jFQeJoIMxZJMreeFopQPMlxoRApq7DNiFCSc pcRST18Wb3cP1iL; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1328800756; x=1360336756; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=3c9OnP1SuKXquv7/hquOXrnFr8u81oFgDpZ4ynfEOUg=; b=Wx7qKuhgFGX7w89+1dSR4QeFS18Yk+QvO8jJBHgalE9fJDnUQgHEwM0m 0SrxHXKAyiETQKKfWB1D8+z2uvuR3puqE08TienKL8D2r1cWWv0mKW6zv iMWqGxofWm9pvFO; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,390,1325491200"; d="pdf'?txt'?scan'208";a="5988461" Received: from den-vtenf-002.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-004.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.213]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2012 07:19:16 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-004.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::a487:c570:9abc:bb59%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:19:14 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Andrew Sullivan Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CA Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:19:13 +0000 Message-ID: <9A564294-5DD9-4D84-BF9F-D5CE60F66EEF@paypal.com> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.36] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: N7Gm/dqXyA9UVX48HVPV9A== Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_9A5642945DD94D84BF9FD5CE60F66EEFpaypalcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:19:21 -0000 --_003_9A5642945DD94D84BF9FD5CE60F66EEFpaypalcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <52C8494DFEE768499E4A972DD5991666@corp.ebay.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Feb 9, 2012, at 5:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > In any case, I believe that the attached is our best hope for getting > a WG chartered on this general topic, and getting enough momentum so > that name registry problems can be tackled in future. If you think > I'm wrong, please make a concrete proposal. What name registry > milestones would you add, when? Remember that you'll need to be able > to justify them to the IESG, so you better have your arguments ready. > As requested, see attached. --_003_9A5642945DD94D84BF9FD5CE60F66EEFpaypalcom_ Content-Type: application/pdf; name="WEIRDS Number & Name Charter.pdf" Content-Description: WEIRDS Number & Name Charter.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WEIRDS Number & Name Charter.pdf"; size=34713; creation-date="Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:19:13 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:19:13 GMT" Content-ID: <2FBBE6EA1C6BF64189C6B927F72EB4BC@corp.ebay.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 JVBERi0xLjMKJcTl8uXrp/Og0MTGCjQgMCBvYmoKPDwgL0xlbmd0aCA1IDAgUiAvRmlsdGVyIC9G bGF0ZURlY29kZSA+PgpzdHJlYW0KeAGtXElz3DYWvvevQOVkVzkMwZ2ZkxMnM65KahxbNb74QnVT EmM22SHZkpVfP98DSABcmksrTqXctiTgrd9b4b/YH+wvxiPmuhbncRwxPwxY6LtW5LEqZZ9ZwX74 ueZsXzNb/Ffv8QO25Xjyz/QBPx5y2wq83f7IfrrBV23OHXazZ54vvqv97ebIfri54ZbNOLu5Y68+ l1Xz8PSQ5Sn75VuTFnV2i4/viyatirRhH9P7rG6qpMnKgr1LmoR9SqvHbJ+yL6+e0qw61F9ev97d /Ml+uRFc9InyvNCyAzAkSWOStDmCdq/Ya9YdF1kRftQOrdCPY3AUOow7xCyEcjclAVxlee0tUgC7 RQF8/+JfM/xDh0Fox8wkbDX7EyoOokAxOHcOgxgvagWmEoSexYOepGZMZSdN5d3Ht7/esJ8fkgrG wR6ZY3NHK2tErQ8NONzv3bWbJ/r7ueMCK3CcQB+322Dl9hyhQWxFjhe2J7f+cz2hIVTk+J2MVx1n z/AduRBjsOm4WB9nW7HtR2AP7uM6scehfPVpN4kjMeQcwmRNE5mXRqJtjUf4cfxsYNkgmTxWuO20 w8aB5ThzN+2GaHWrOeP4adfBVdzy8Vv/qosw6diOFbk236LsISK1V7Z41ILRro985GOBo31sXoDG DSM3wkFebMXORlyHm2ZV/aOW1/DgwLMcOyTRmce/iE43tGCo++MWz2T4dfPTuzV0iuNX+dOCPB1f 0/kihrlreS5C0zaWVXB9W6UJe5dV6b4pta52lA0MrElhir6RgvwS8bMhwOYd8avyhTYIkL4+pE2K zKAusv3XN+JPFfuUZEVzWYuOHeM2JCRBe+0qPc7EA4cDYlxndODavOdtcajSNywpDuynpKqe2W9p 1qHLhAZc37MC34Mz9sU2rwEDGIcqdQNuOb4P9Ft54I6ytXnD9gG+ThvU5wjrJVlDwoBcSD+teHN2 kNb7KjuJRLG8Y8grv2bFPft3VZ5PMzCkDENeusosFqQAZBPUEwzNiWFRnL5DUUUkrYD3dfk0+Ydy 8Epmz1las7uyYrdl88CK8/EW6VOV1uW52uMrZIJFcsSnh+Qx1aF0qBjPsy0vQEbsG3TNMrioZ5zY MQjEWWDQAIAH1ARlle2TPH9mR/J8/J8eWMLysvx6PrG6LRKakp3S6pg17HS+zbM9S/ZguZ5hMgis KHSZb5I2p8RFHh2UBBSUtoIcSK/LY8pOKJCo+IFNNw8p9CYKomd2QDF0m9SpxdjvZd10XyBdl3d3 abWCR5O0F/EILESGdwWPYKhT1WOWXIZv7iHSObbH/PFVyyUW+/yf/77/hIrx468/MzfmzpfXb9hT BmdIDoeMpJvkHR01u02BGyukZ1LyIunZyISukZ5QM6wekmNPZZUfwNMhZU/pLTsl92n9ht2e86/s UD4VeZkc8GdydWAAjAM17m66ZEYTIArCkPkmWXP8LdV6XtzFhEUXFz0BeBR+tWZRszz7imD/4dNv rf4cVGFfXluXbcXxHIT6wGe4+B+Acy+yWwheEoLqGwyREyHNC9BF6Ie0FXYLOWg+N5dSnmd5tudO 3b1cbH8WLRmKCzJA9KNGhzYahmq2LwUMC9RqqUYiQ0SAAlRlEAKSsLmCzOvaFT1p9cQ+qshMAXW9 KdG38RCGEayGXRslRUTUUUHKJgtSxDifarxZfBsTBuUhAzkQHAuwZlkBGR2PZfGGkBwlaYL/tX7J SvzQ8jzm4DfcR6TvJitXJ/TxfTxeRRlTRWwbQevsvsjuED2Lhh0yihVpQYnAbdo8pWmhKaJrQEdH FQBB19O7cQMMnmKJiq4nr576NC1t+0/wL5FI1cxSfUgytPpgb+i4Kd3h07TuxlWwh8ixpLsxVdAd VHQEglLKBMUhXTqhTGJPDwmERn1IfP25s3mJrPg2/CUrkXGgX2nGEFKtRyqDJ8w6gJKgSXVPgmM7 0/oaSBApTEB9FyjNaFsqIW5xABfFwkISMyYMQjyWhzQXHkCSaYWYPabCEc4FYm9aI4F5W7DsSIlO 3yRZZmRqJEPEJjJHYZWCr0nv8EIkC6HH8f0G2ddKEUmSluJFOzSEeQFDOLBvQYTaDo1ctyGLGyTt IENkgZTsHUpWlI3I3YX51RAjIEdZxY4E50AQzEV51sKK5GMYpzy0ur3ARcQwib1WcMiPZqxPu/Cy 6EAWUr9Z+J0UHdD2lDYwMhhclaJGyAdwa0dUqXGfo78lHWXSoHjXoSUB2VsnHMek+opJhtBjRmGS QgBDen9MCsTPkuoXUYDpnJMuBEWepM8Jha3PGHxXmUn6IKlNpecANgDzaM1r2JAhSMGGVpzxadrm 3RghuKe3dTmPtm4jzYMZu2i5Aszi2EIjhwicjo6cQ0s84Ph+fX/PirW1qDCkWlV9abixaKK20ph2 G6IsQrRqOe3dNEZF5ZjjLhvOgar9fpo4StXGRwJoZYXzkNSsSB9R3t8ikCNu0RRNzM6SPPs7PQBq 38sgldzWFPQpN0Fn4Jjk2vhGqNDBaY+4HpcDeS7VxK4fLXKpjzSwkGKwyFyoZkPQPbCHco+EMz/T X9TkVJTcoJobsU5iX6h4emTN8bdU8bieGA1sB6zW8OW0U2QZ1JKRykwO5amhHgdquEN6ystnoc8P VfmYHTKRtS3xdw1Z92ymLFcJe4/joeh2vYGvAcFDSyNHcj2a3MyKbtIBauQOhwTz4Bn/slHacq93 xwsGgph2exgvKoq3TB2ocaPsVoaGGt0shPOnNM8RI86o5o9ZkR3htuzujBn5fEcH/Xogo6JlqTm/ 6KGOs6iGSQ89VWWeoaKQJgx0GfqogehD9WPKiI0DaB9tddz+D9TuLgpO7DBsjIdDumCWThzKgyBY 5CsLncouqChcTvK6RIYGcC5l8SDy4h8RTk455XBUCMIk2oamhuLNQdeNMAJDR18TvMUq/zyjj6j9 RxyGk2LqXNBuiBl0VZgcSgttOpDg+5qEmc7nyJXvqjTVFIzO7vY5TH2gIDAWTEYnzsxwFHz1jlPq XcAGipszpHalnDx7qzGLGhjzcspPdSom8o/dUCpknxFGivOoqd3VMM8m/dYgKbhBQ50d04RCKJUb 8GJqk9P8BC4sc4vy3JzODUuO5bloKNRqMx0SpCYFJlk9LQ2IWYIjBymIu5o/I2H4DjOhyzpCshXZ EWZga84fGVavVTIUQQwnwK6D0z+6J4PRgTOWCvhxuBNdonTBUiGE5ARlftd2vUUaJTNCoFJxyNNK DogodXzuWq/WjIIDGW96cusxt1XBmEZepWCt3M1Y2bVHHXF366DK+fuoMmAHa2uiPWr4v+hzYu2G ChSZZ10uULRxmGzPyY+9+l1rAz+OS5wAzZDRjstFWNYWdA27VKnOinqhiHewh8YF0ct6HvkFIIi6 R/p+Tsd1AtDCvlCddcX7VXo2ynOTAFmftyoIu652Wyl3beghJjhYdLFdxFJJyTxcj6Sgi2KDkM1G 76IThIUb9JivMQP0mrQWxFGdFtAwalsoC0JwPax9+Niju0oINZb/0DeXyZJBy7IcYKC0hEb/0Qdq JYox1xoyBt6/e9X2cLQs6Djw3xrE0CQvOqXqmF+lDRmRNRFDe/OhlCBCL6d3+jzMGDKVKQgQDePr NSkIrBsZ4mzlNhAk6mj8Ev2H5o2xMLqsTalEpU0Nbh0RW9LeJG8eyvP9g8E7HYgxDNaUMXJWXdMF 0+Z+uyJKjr4kipF/E8R142g1Mkrz9JhSuqW1PCGcefBVq0NXkbVHgoBZskDgocHRyQTqUk5Id9AD E5ZCXdRRmqra8j06Vpjj1HjIgY9pu5TIPyEZkNMNiqhFOQABSpyx1LekqkmrpTaMDsniJKA7rIUa gUoIox6fTjnHFy83R4+JGYbpLDAgrnVUs13I/iLiaE8Z3z/qNILxfu9mn5xrozxbFvjAT7kL8OWR 24p9VVFkNHTox7Fy66BHRJtwZHutpDGNvMgyd7HSw+Pu0kWE6rNMtRBeJBxlgnxKKiwmqIHWYaY3 pgOdkPTG/LJJjEbJhJwXXB7BXSz3rTHvERKxt21P2OhVaPwRi4OdDjjUYRj7wL+8GClqiG2qHhkr PB6vObA6oDQqIxG0ThGctD41zsRXOlfXny44vSNWA7aHqq4v12T3CVZQAdlo43UGMlMvqZUUZ9PN qpDV0h/GeGjZCtCoYWtOHml65ZKHvp5wDs05SqBiv98QGlLmY1XYjmxkHybPS8q/MIbBpZs1PwpA RDwsB9PczZrXSD9kE84diT3gbUd3qu22+PT6zPG8fxCOp6U+vJNUgDEt/EqwswpGjQxifBwKGJf2 Tszj1lbCGF52Wy1pIdIoc6ck/YZVTTGXOd8jjWi0IIU2bCz00YzOwBB8NhN136U9EHegup4Zjcza 4HWAIRx/lgByMWWYR1ai2hZ7FSttqFO0uck1VIC2oRVHj7kVLbsEk6/iHk/nxNhI9JdnDKh7hSJ5 ebEBdcv1veNWG1CNaV1yAoyeqoxglVaVwU470Mn+lrOE9A5/3xggC1VwPO0zgGi6AaCByJTulRbE kUChgr8YhQzr6UehgVkT8ZF+LNijRuebnfHMaBLPAmxuh73TLkh+bDmmUSpPGVpn1ycz6F3oNxr+ J0I3R3daC21aSyQQemXyUlukc7D5Jx4XbikCqRLVYt6ccSkhdXdvGXrcoPSTTXY4QVPuyxxrIai5 aK9HLPli6ItNkXZVr8n0tvK/WGZAquhBcmywY4a2etdSSYtGWxfssJsYGAIS2RnSK6lgyjcHXQJK yece/13YtWyXcUx0Xa6LSHlYZyR5GVIClGBagRnGHkM2ObNoxam+idVnLEKgvsbClEo9yITk42fP 65W0o2rOa18L9IjuyXDscxdliKaBluH14YmjIEQryhTgVGHXvsLuEAYCzArZiRGPDSqK2XheUT5p ibaPJxiGu9QQKGF7RpFCUkNvD+NWtDipTCOMnF7Qob0c9KSQx5u09uSmMVDZntKPQippe4ieqLsv IjK+MqoLph+eoqxoHxCS8y6RI7e9R2UKx+M+Tc5lrOPtG0CNE+vM/H9JlZVnjIybJj2exCCOFgmw JUINpBwLA42Il6JGbbeCtGkPsV3Ni/mYnmWrod2UI1bb6CmFNuvhHcpJzCt60p1zkuFpZGbY40C2 Omvh4yNh4cfsGxZo6rN4AyTGnqBfvp3ZAyCo6yZLuieM6t9/1E9GopjTkwNlgUOi1L8z0COtx+PA oJcmnjG38C8xxOE8l/pQw48F4XLZoGlXhzqe7845LPKUJ3vRVhSZlrARCEMpECnMzJvtKdhWe6OT VC/bNcU/5H5YlHxWVCCAiSV4tBDkv0kRisdwl0FF9dIniVg25k96K94gAo8/kKbhnSRUoSlo0bmL gUNzoAdyAWryjpKtOY3ANXVti2zizqmaFuOnTabSASocAu9/a9qbo4y7oR0ApOFpIrD/VgIKrdDm KOKaZ/IOMi3xeIHdJXsj8RgKQC1WDGi76BHDx6V//B8jNWs7CmVuZHN0cmVhbQplbmRvYmoKNSAw IG9iago0MTE5CmVuZG9iagoyIDAgb2JqCjw8IC9UeXBlIC9QYWdlIC9QYXJlbnQgMyAwIFIgL1Jl c291cmNlcyA2IDAgUiAvQ29udGVudHMgNCAwIFIgL01lZGlhQm94IFswIDAgNjEyIDc5Ml0KPj4K ZW5kb2JqCjYgMCBvYmoKPDwgL1Byb2NTZXQgWyAvUERGIC9UZXh0IF0gL0NvbG9yU3BhY2UgPDwg L0NzMSA3IDAgUiA+PiAvRm9udCA8PCAvVFQxLjAgOCAwIFIKPj4gPj4KZW5kb2JqCjkgMCBvYmoK PDwgL0xlbmd0aCAxMCAwIFIgL04gMyAvQWx0ZXJuYXRlIC9EZXZpY2VSR0IgL0ZpbHRlciAvRmxh dGVEZWNvZGUgPj4Kc3RyZWFtCngBnZZ3VFPZFofPvTe90BIiICX0GnoJINI7SBUEUYlJgFAChoQm dkQFRhQRKVZkVMABR4ciY0UUC4OCYtcJ8hBQxsFRREXl3YxrCe+tNfPemv3HWd/Z57fX2Wfvfde6 AFD8ggTCdFgBgDShWBTu68FcEhPLxPcCGBABDlgBwOFmZgRH+EQC1Py9PZmZqEjGs/buLoBku9ss v1Amc9b/f5EiN0MkBgAKRdU2PH4mF+UClFOzxRky/wTK9JUpMoYxMhahCaKsIuPEr2z2p+Yru8mY lybkoRpZzhm8NJ6Mu1DemiXho4wEoVyYJeBno3wHZb1USZoA5fco09P4nEwAMBSZX8znJqFsiTJF FBnuifICAAiUxDm8cg6L+TlongB4pmfkigSJSWKmEdeYaeXoyGb68bNT+WIxK5TDTeGIeEzP9LQM jjAXgK9vlkUBJVltmWiR7a0c7e1Z1uZo+b/Z3x5+U/09yHr7VfEm7M+eQYyeWd9s7KwvvRYA9iRa mx2zvpVVALRtBkDl4axP7yAA8gUAtN6c8x6GbF6SxOIMJwuL7OxscwGfay4r6Df7n4Jvyr+GOfeZ y+77VjumFz+BI0kVM2VF5aanpktEzMwMDpfPZP33EP/jwDlpzcnDLJyfwBfxhehVUeiUCYSJaLuF PIFYkC5kCoR/1eF/GDYnBxl+nWsUaHVfAH2FOVC4SQfIbz0AQyMDJG4/egJ961sQMQrIvrxorZGv c48yev7n+h8LXIpu4UxBIlPm9gyPZHIloiwZo9+EbMECEpAHdKAKNIEuMAIsYA0cgDNwA94gAISA SBADlgMuSAJpQASyQT7YAApBMdgBdoNqcADUgXrQBE6CNnAGXARXwA1wCwyAR0AKhsFLMAHegWkI gvAQFaJBqpAWpA+ZQtYQG1oIeUNBUDgUA8VDiZAQkkD50CaoGCqDqqFDUD30I3Qaughdg/qgB9Ag NAb9AX2EEZgC02EN2AC2gNmwOxwIR8LL4ER4FZwHF8Db4Uq4Fj4Ot8IX4RvwACyFX8KTCEDICAPR RlgIG/FEQpBYJAERIWuRIqQCqUWakA6kG7mNSJFx5AMGh6FhmBgWxhnjh1mM4WJWYdZiSjDVmGOY VkwX5jZmEDOB+YKlYtWxplgnrD92CTYRm40txFZgj2BbsJexA9hh7DscDsfAGeIccH64GFwybjWu BLcP14y7gOvDDeEm8Xi8Kt4U74IPwXPwYnwhvgp/HH8e348fxr8nkAlaBGuCDyGWICRsJFQQGgjn CP2EEcI0UYGoT3QihhB5xFxiKbGO2EG8SRwmTpMUSYYkF1IkKZm0gVRJaiJdJj0mvSGTyTpkR3IY WUBeT64knyBfJQ+SP1CUKCYUT0ocRULZTjlKuUB5QHlDpVINqG7UWKqYup1aT71EfUp9L0eTM5fz l+PJrZOrkWuV65d7JU+U15d3l18unydfIX9K/qb8uAJRwUDBU4GjsFahRuG0wj2FSUWaopViiGKa Yolig+I1xVElvJKBkrcST6lA6bDSJaUhGkLTpXnSuLRNtDraZdowHUc3pPvTk+nF9B/ovfQJZSVl W+Uo5RzlGuWzylIGwjBg+DNSGaWMk4y7jI/zNOa5z+PP2zavaV7/vCmV+SpuKnyVIpVmlQGVj6pM VW/VFNWdqm2qT9QwaiZqYWrZavvVLquNz6fPd57PnV80/+T8h+qwuol6uPpq9cPqPeqTGpoavhoZ GlUalzTGNRmabprJmuWa5zTHtGhaC7UEWuVa57VeMJWZ7sxUZiWzizmhra7tpy3RPqTdqz2tY6iz WGejTrPOE12SLls3Qbdct1N3Qk9LL1gvX69R76E+UZ+tn6S/R79bf8rA0CDaYItBm8GooYqhv2Ge YaPhYyOqkavRKqNaozvGOGO2cYrxPuNbJrCJnUmSSY3JTVPY1N5UYLrPtM8Ma+ZoJjSrNbvHorDc WVmsRtagOcM8yHyjeZv5Kws9i1iLnRbdFl8s7SxTLessH1kpWQVYbbTqsPrD2sSaa11jfceGauNj s86m3ea1rakt33a/7X07ml2w3Ra7TrvP9g72Ivsm+zEHPYd4h70O99h0dii7hH3VEevo4bjO8Yzj Byd7J7HTSaffnVnOKc4NzqMLDBfwF9QtGHLRceG4HHKRLmQujF94cKHUVduV41rr+sxN143ndsRt xN3YPdn9uPsrD0sPkUeLx5Snk+cazwteiJevV5FXr7eS92Lvau+nPjo+iT6NPhO+dr6rfS/4Yf0C /Xb63fPX8Of61/tPBDgErAnoCqQERgRWBz4LMgkSBXUEw8EBwbuCHy/SXyRc1BYCQvxDdoU8CTUM XRX6cxguLDSsJux5uFV4fnh3BC1iRURDxLtIj8jSyEeLjRZLFndGyUfFRdVHTUV7RZdFS5dYLFmz 5EaMWowgpj0WHxsVeyR2cqn30t1Lh+Ps4grj7i4zXJaz7NpyteWpy8+ukF/BWXEqHhsfHd8Q/4kT wqnlTK70X7l35QTXk7uH+5LnxivnjfFd+GX8kQSXhLKE0USXxF2JY0muSRVJ4wJPQbXgdbJf8oHk qZSQlKMpM6nRqc1phLT4tNNCJWGKsCtdMz0nvS/DNKMwQ7rKadXuVROiQNGRTChzWWa7mI7+TPVI jCSbJYNZC7Nqst5nR2WfylHMEeb05JrkbssdyfPJ+341ZjV3dWe+dv6G/ME17msOrYXWrlzbuU53 XcG64fW+649tIG1I2fDLRsuNZRvfbore1FGgUbC+YGiz7+bGQrlCUeG9Lc5bDmzFbBVs7d1ms61q 25ciXtH1YsviiuJPJdyS699ZfVf53cz2hO29pfal+3fgdgh33N3puvNYmWJZXtnQruBdreXM8qLy t7tX7L5WYVtxYA9pj2SPtDKosr1Kr2pH1afqpOqBGo+a5r3qe7ftndrH29e/321/0wGNA8UHPh4U HLx/yPdQa61BbcVh3OGsw8/rouq6v2d/X39E7Ujxkc9HhUelx8KPddU71Nc3qDeUNsKNksax43HH b/3g9UN7E6vpUDOjufgEOCE58eLH+B/vngw82XmKfarpJ/2f9rbQWopaodbc1om2pDZpe0x73+mA 050dzh0tP5v/fPSM9pmas8pnS8+RzhWcmzmfd37yQsaF8YuJF4c6V3Q+urTk0p2usK7ey4GXr17x uXKp2737/FWXq2euOV07fZ19ve2G/Y3WHruell/sfmnpte9tvelws/2W462OvgV95/pd+y/e9rp9 5Y7/nRsDiwb67i6+e/9e3D3pfd790QepD14/zHo4/Wj9Y+zjoicKTyqeqj+t/dX412apvfTsoNdg z7OIZ4+GuEMv/5X5r0/DBc+pzytGtEbqR61Hz4z5jN16sfTF8MuMl9Pjhb8p/rb3ldGrn353+71n YsnE8GvR65k/St6ovjn61vZt52To5NN3ae+mp4req74/9oH9oftj9MeR6exP+E+Vn40/d3wJ/PJ4 Jm1m5t/3hPP7CmVuZHN0cmVhbQplbmRvYmoKMTAgMCBvYmoKMjYxMgplbmRvYmoKNyAwIG9iagpb IC9JQ0NCYXNlZCA5IDAgUiBdCmVuZG9iagoxMiAwIG9iago8PCAvTGVuZ3RoIDEzIDAgUiAvRmls dGVyIC9GbGF0ZURlY29kZSA+PgpzdHJlYW0KeAHFXEtz3MYRvu+vmKNUpcB4A5ubotixqlKJLW6V LrqAuyAJaxdYAVjR9K/P1zOYF94QD4mrYiYyZ/o13V9/3fA39jv7xryUBYHjeft9yqIkZkkUOGnI 6px9ZiX76UPjsWPDXP5Xc8QvuI4fiv9NP+DXE8914nB3vLB/HPCnruf57HBkYcT/qe5vhwv76XDw HJd57PDA3jD8p33KWla07Clr8LeGVc8lO1Zl+3Z3+IP9fODi2bf5ru+kget1d7KVd+7EnXV1Ztes bt+xrDyp2+v8262o8+Ytm7o1dF0njf3A1nRBv+njYLJ4nzohpN9ttFhxuZ7zS162ed2wtmK38oSf WqFOzk55mxVnGPIB2uWsrbOyuVY1N3LRTJs1DBPHhUxKLvLknH67N2xevzTm+q2KiM47FBG3pigf nemj0xDh5SYBi40LLEF3g0CbPo0ckYSOF3dxZB3EDpedHbHzB8W+PmjiEQxlg8p31SXHa3ssmrYu 8gaP4Ts58nquXvITy/+85nVBHs/OrMnr78UR/wx/ONe6+l6c8hmvxrGTkq1M0fo6mq9y0avh3tn7 Gx8duVVbznX2bpSmlEGcwN+HHnygfxrJL2HohG4IJfjdG5MMPQJ9Nx3F4sij9OZTfLpO4u+Q6B6m 01uCl++m0b67f173gX87t2ZtUZWsKB+q+iJ+1p6ss1NBf5ydzy94tw95Da9/L7I5tyInJr4t0Wq3 pk6KqKf3LvRnnk9pnFthJLfHQeLEqaX2blVu//zrfz/erXrJ/IaNjmXs8JQ3OfJFzjL26ee7w8Pt zLIr3kR2fKLMeMraDM/oXHzPaxgW/00pccaqKHtx4sLRpsarzTpmOj/qm26mLBpJ8Dm/dxj7pbrV rLlBm/wBgYPyyDPDfZ6XIu232de8FKXsUsF/KtB32x+ZmzhhHOCVDWVedveleHxq2X2uBGAhzosQ oT6Ch0Uo2cZT61sqjLtwHl69bK6sNm/FSQHdGlBwezxX0RMXwT2JYMIU6Trh4pLDukic8zzQi9ZV PChfKmm8p11fVao3XuCEwX5vvagZPQ20lJVtcSyuWYsEUZRQCqW9RPxTsPNyQVWCSv/Hf/7nPQLo 8FTneQcFZuI+dOF6ygm2ZJP67zh60/qPKel665TsFVhUimGsI3NSGifcRsqUt8s93jK0x/s4mpVT 67g9/oGA0zhJWNxJvjUdEQCrSli7ZGV2MbFkiKNRMyMAvpQBGVOErqg7URg7ou7YtpxwS5c9jHy7 2QYR3mmcDkwwcaGMSx0H6n3xB0H6RhHinD9AXmO6SrsVAODRROnesWHHclIyQUc/RAPPQSPhReLg rb5m/0JNEUGZnWTxZgqZ8wKvY5GLHwtb+BFPizon9QXzk8gJQ29vaoxsvraj0s6gg5DRor3noBnD yzaDbnBrmqJ/C81LZ8E/e3PQ+vn4ZaTY7qaYfp7Rbx8BbESeedVq/VC9VYfm00Hy0p56KhD7egYu mq6QhDXiaSK+ZTnWV4qwRtsRoFU2wnoSOqGZdvbUWmxt8vSdI48Y5pK4eQYtq7tnGrABWs3/RA+C /ssobhwyRwl0T6B0tKeg0u6Vlh4WOhf51ENESRPMiIE+y+5BRMuTl0juz0X7NJPx3xmSbjZVsA8d P8brWCPkwFZdx13U2ll0IJL7pLX64RhKxCkE2Io7pPGZCEz0sWZgviLZxqEIW+2zNdmWsVPBuxf4 rekch0qI1yE723dAs4+PeQMkS/2rTiGUInmrihALgl4KUWr2zRdEoRNHIf0uCbw1i4M0qXmwP1f1 Vy6v8uQgnBVCFFd12G0ic5iVccdJLOEgNOGuwMEGRByj06gQI0n1qK3dwnXATtPQiF2yF/ZS5OcT A9d1/Erw6XZuZxihAPEURjDuqDBT5UHCkPl3iQwyk8KCFE0DcFh39Ua//lo95+j13hGtWIBVvBD9 BeRMzhXe4OfjcJRVALKIeDid0fpBpmCYZQfLFYPUYCovWVMRAuJOfhvyjiAehnBoPsPTYwFkHwbI gk+IhuG0UVa+iLaSBz7o1gYkUs1hK4UFR9UNJ0jLqkXgfM3Z8akyaaf8eL6ZvBOJFKRkzigI5wGA BJmWCj9qTjTqYHI6cyoSQxUCw46zAUfi+wgDm+UY9GRDP8OiGVrx4qFARya5BwOC84MjktED6YQm oIuz3cPw2cd7B6RYYktiGaZXJ7seVMT0ZJL0UIBDn96xqeHEuVOYhxrzgZn7L4WU9WLyAk9cS+lK JduhKXCQi9LcHYSLCf6uK0Eghdhn5HMCMf+qq9uVNU8g1ogXz+tLgQaNWsnHvMxr0Kllnp84V85Z ljnGTdLjlmATVuT5f4lJDX+IRu1YQ8H5cNY/q0/FX0SBEW9+Bm9MrNdDjcJLr1sbefOjCGL0SGjg 2KKkw3dxzPTF/TAJUoyA0CyMnbsQM9fsHhqCAmhuV8rq0Fjfw+VlIYB9EDMvpO6AXpuAQX0hIhev ItlHhhBzzhx/ajyldxd2OWgypUMWs+IhMxEBTn/RD3g6QBj9gj+VzyW+QPa5oIYXGAgJt18q0J0z JV3lgg2XyZTw5U3uPDoSYRD4JZrjy1vtAFIiScj6AcaBHcnRGYQU3Y10KwGSkh+58MMW9TkBxfkt TA9HYr3v7VAyXPoWy9vDANZaCSdDL9TrfqHp30MWiBMn2QxF4UmRpu45oY3JZMXQ/mRXYDSwfay6 /yM/dqgZ89EbUBxNEhQllpUaS/eFkuyqkGwFcl3MXBFnFnrodCpYZfxQqSyb57zmfsPERaYorTlU EnEM7WGIjroXwxA2l5xlGxWaklke7pXORRXDgPrc7SrKOQTPwl2yFiNN9uvh8JsBDPtuQqp1YiBT FvK7N4LeL2+qq5oh8REqO/z77stbYeyZ4FAvw9T4VaYjam0BSGlvGNFBAxqq1IL/RT+GnxEF95jn nDAYy87FY4lY4IQA1fAPddU07JNoLl9mVFTRYUr2KhUxWPghFT/S1L7MW3Ynxrjst7pqqyN2Er68 +fDp491vX95CIb6LQEx+g//70y8fWJC4yZe379j9zWiZ+/GjuASQh1q6V6mJEQ6mKNsfgXIReJwz BhYtM1jSxwq4CyUcc7rT7UgwjaALLTW865LujnZS7PoYepj6x1CGxkpKpjnlrIrdPw55mqia1VEq AR1yWJ41L7o49A9Ws2Lz+Akxu9D/28xpGMm5+zhZI+yghLXV9MF7bOtg7O5bB1tiDo6bEXOfOL7n p2Buxmy6AOkUaU4BId4C79Qnln98xHYAoppftTFH8lUjvjPDi0u3XoFBO58e6wSikLKB2Wz01o9O DDn9OAbu6Qywhe7lUF67KqSzcBDnwGgraw7FytIu7yW+znKjTrQSMxpqWsxEsOfLK5tg7IAlo3eV 0hh0Zc6QQuFdUc6obi3vzrp1LD7M5IQFIU0ASUkjUlnIjsfqArxLs1CtExeAExAhxrEmrTPZHyts yCXfGFIorx9L7bx+OggTjHqT0BNW6c5ecpCacHDkGSR6iK33NEYtj+QTyT2m9RMjwLJuhPWOG/+h Op+rZ8rLLZ8eX+uiqrGfQjtHxARd6/yYnzg3TxVb236gvGyZUb60YHPaL6GyAFTdeg1NaAG8gG25 h7q6MFlQ/z7tNi/F+oCPnRd1IT3oOcmtdYC+ISgoMctFQ8SfxUJCnIGIdBDoNbBs5vtax4t4CNUP FZVZtBNd+0w9BPYICJPwkSUg1l9iOQn1+dttzrmUcfjoZESgAW+ms1DnEwomdJDTHtCP0tTX8sCg Qi0YDvmgZ7iBnMMjkZjkkkUDQrkk2rODLLRxCe4Ff44X0dB2Hl/xIpOW1Vw7JjdJA1MiSzVtrw54 zBRfAkR8b8c6buL5DxR8f/fh40fW5n/O1FydxAyBXxfELqhOG1iuC2LsvFBYduFjuob4iOfshVf3 ojwVR+qaz1n5eMse0T7PpSlVvE2p5v0xH2o+AFFPvUGoaRcbaer4lNXZEc8Ra54tJVpaBeTDNIoq FYhdA22znNQuzeTibg/UEu1VOqbECJtpaJ2KRLiKdSVJxz4/5ZSdTWdh2pAZU9V+Pg18D8sKe2xw khAbK7a2L1rmmt1X7ROaLmxGq+lQ/7pQ2s5Qec50VAsmt9eRwn2AAnBk222XlWLEgIpM0d3kZ3BC FfEpnzvw1KBFxiziiGkXp4bEshhtnlLpm5ZKqWiKNqfjUqVGafgxHUerEV8HaJGA2ycM9Ex0KEkC 4g3WdceWZK9SEdvIAOfb3UgDyaYpiMkGz3XJ89YYGPWDz5NTIV9e91oo4mNmJuV+VRb3fXTQPwJF fESsLv2z3dYYZax6bEuAOVeyN5907NOvMx+lDLR7b9Ggb3yQvqL/tm5aO416z4wchqPAJ/rYOcfE WSN6GgDvJlsT1ViP3D+Wbu1dyuKxwvyrwfz2+IS5l7Z4X00Pzabv7yGdduhCZMwAEvV9jjpuSzf8 gOJeEt3HCVQ+z9CCq1BZO9dV0wUly6BDHkAi4yMg+nWg9vFgmfQaIeIUg9DOnhvrE1g+lCSOzInk 7EjRzgZjzJhcXZ5WUWMN2W/TccZiChRcM9oAyYO622U8670NjGi87360Iciw2uEmzDpOAdaFwAMg VzwRYT4CRrTOwMMFf/JQnPnHMf0hcDdLaBydCPqCKQLVEszSs2fJxSoIqD9usN5BS5DBw4alNLyy 1HRDKvazYaqRp7Oa0+o+uuFXb4zhAAn+TkxouYPkWlhb6C+Y2BlLOmerqbq/nb9q9/C9Qw9MJV5g gKGutXY48J3c3jYstRRJhnEsJswDzsNHkCYThnyz8Zsl4Dw+bO3jgyWh4DQwW3kDwxDDhdk+ETFY 7+8261p2PGdNgxhHi45PX2ojoPmdPGMNVuj69lKbc6aQVqjPPWmV+jhD5QE0SudohmpA4ZN0WNPz JGC3bht5D4oG68tOB4llmv/LXq26e1BKtBJdTxfoEBPRDAyHudEC6oBurhsFSaflKtYw1Dfh1wHv PAy90IPaV00jDWylx3y+Ymk3nWpspIHn/p49Yp57yWr+4LsmHeueFTA7ZvSEz2kayr9Zpf9DMlBr prqWTHNhY+VjEZvC4uZbHg3MYPBV4zpCwlg/6YepdiM/fGMK5d8XYIkJ35QIKg4DUOSFqyDIG+LD mxdwTn8qpEA2fzGyQV+e0EcxiqMInwIYyq42Z/84eoX0bZdsAOYOWixvHvp4edB00HU74gZhcgBC oi0nSpKPxrJXdkbgnajAVFeMF01woB+Kyumr0aRcXPJMeS3FB1nTRJP4dXqZ+FYBE0z7ZfIC5LKx BRm5Cysu3RhGGCADIIntEa1535dyjGRdYemlU5sJIcWMTjw0ZP7BavPYlMLDdwGY361sm+VtKItA evhyFlyN2G4gcJzdAx7rRRKkIQoIy9uKiFHeXguA1BKykni587a8TR8+ekT2jvgamXjM15JUV1dS jVn9IMQGEUAw/yZ8sn6G+IAlTmJEoukKy92DMDaQpHA39MIkZsU+FH1+tN/vk62BC4+Ti0sMm5om w/e7smIQ4q/wRbwaVKiddzEe1AhyEOaSeZcyLUahXebMb/o2h5PaYJCXbzUIdTu9OajkjdAW4niG JoG+twNwwCr27EdYcgdbyrKqp5O34d/J0a3C7+W/NGRtMoN4AEApk/d2NrBibzHVKDXNqj6WajA5 5aE3pt3MLbvf/wdq5slnCmVuZHN0cmVhbQplbmRvYmoKMTMgMCBvYmoKNDI2MwplbmRvYmoKMTEg MCBvYmoKPDwgL1R5cGUgL1BhZ2UgL1BhcmVudCAzIDAgUiAvUmVzb3VyY2VzIDE0IDAgUiAvQ29u dGVudHMgMTIgMCBSIC9NZWRpYUJveApbMCAwIDYxMiA3OTJdID4+CmVuZG9iagoxNCAwIG9iago8 PCAvUHJvY1NldCBbIC9QREYgL1RleHQgXSAvQ29sb3JTcGFjZSA8PCAvQ3MxIDcgMCBSID4+IC9G b250IDw8IC9UVDEuMCA4IDAgUgo+PiA+PgplbmRvYmoKMTYgMCBvYmoKPDwgL0xlbmd0aCAxNyAw IFIgL0ZpbHRlciAvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGUgPj4Kc3RyZWFtCngBrVxLj9tGEr7rV/RtbWBWYfMt7Cmx s1kDuwskGSCXXCiK42EikbJIeTL/Pl/1g93Nl0h5Nod14Jnu6q+qvnoyX9jP7AvjKQuCLee7Xcqi JGZJFGzTkF0K9hur2HcfGs7yhnninybHL3hbP5T/Tn/Aryfc28bhJj+xHx7xtx7nPnvMWRiJn1L/ 93hi3z0+8q3HOHt8Yu8Y/veePf7BfnyEGN5250VpSgdvA38Xcp5uuj+xkWvDcBt6YaDuZvLuiRs3 6kbrOv2adJtCfi/ZJtFuh7sTn3GfnoXnP62XCmDEu3QbKnluYqElc7AQh0RSIj/GYUIsIVAffI2C uHSlAh6fC7bPmoI15yIvn8o8a8u6Ys1zdjyyssqP10PBsooVf7VF1dBfnYr8OavK5sTa+v1Gq45k AITQFkyIhd5u689JDOuKE29n47SZ0Ju2lCm9xTuFktIblLYZVRrkUUY1ZkqEd0o49wz4llhQ2rm4 nMqWNdfzub60rH5idftcXCDI57JpL2XRKCTL6vMD/siamj1lF5Y1rCqKQ2NQFEKkCsMQZjmHYRxv 0yRwpHYg3AycbRLCNNhGSl9jhm854U0Mk3DL4z6ILgsMBQOIOYxsD3erL0VTFNUDq7JTYUG4NcIT Skm89VLmw+wCKfhG+qp26b6P+DEcOtgl+E1LQAcv1uGlHdJcKRgiTrgFkySH/j0kG67SENyynv4N EfxGKd1SxNgl4W6781c6O2B+C7aNxd3fxrZxmGw9RWrWS1dHAMI7SLZxOm9yQ906UIhTIhJoKdWK O1fCT1z7Ul/+BA2wz5f6eman7PWB7a+t4AFW1e0DOxRfC0MIglbjYLeNmZ8IgpsOAwGnF6RgBAsQ uO6ySHyszyxjh6zN2PlSP5XHgv3+rr4YA6XjEdKlMDyMFMFLv+tbaBgjP0AYtUVxScBopCP4Lph0 aYZ0u0BoxtD7eEx26H3TF4g07Ecr7ERLBTup938UeUvUdMra398j7hFEX0tERvB8x/v4+z5p0Y9e G0ufQgyYKwuXsrsttENXQxY1uuoB6Ps6knyrq/FgGwYI8L0gOVDtZpDlEVJAra3z+rhljHyhrMq2 zI7CJ9gRoZIgFpC6XiKSEeMThCFsMVgBoiv2vTAiwe24WbL/XXTl8XsxBEF0ORlBxJCO2WHyVdvi A1K2g6ASuPWpqERSAg24IHqBADGKuqg2nl4mUHoSchY7ki8Pba41RkiNIzfPVrF7mP07Pj1WdEQp JZq2NW4W1RzV9bQ3GZrCzfgPTCzacaI7HgvWI/IZZzqO3MnzEX+GosyUPyrDQLb4UiLRJsUi+cnr CvliVlbFge1fZXKI7DK/HsvMYmK6EqIpCf2dp6qDcQFDrT5bQMcFllNxhAxZJPiKjOdqJKO7zUjl Rggjh9vdSBV7om1EwQhSta0e+TUI5T/1CyLn5YG9PBcVy5/ruqE4uy/aF6STrH2pXfUmiC0JmCyA BancdwI/1IVhHASuvPcCiOzTBnCSRm6jF4f3oSdqk5cSUamru0kZopoAHmmEvBK3I3iPsgEHa6Q8 xC/Q/SoDmkfjn9ZN+G0c390W0z3qMlRtg6gNyg15pC5z/HzGuRjfUG+h+HItv2ZHwX5nqmqbh6ng gshUPIEPiCINKnS5ETWIdBU+YSeqHpPAKFnngWGGj3sciRIC5c2beFnkE8Y2Rc5Ch7aM9LK6ovQm Q8Rp2KlGcEY9VmV75IXwv4uNE6wnCtH7YX4gONMyHqSfdpvIR+XgBWgvRbZU8yBp69n8jHJvJ4hP 3mbbDlLCvu34iGtxkCbuXTIdvh0kkLUJCnaLUBFXjYWIK/TjORjFqUX7AoVosKVx0hNo/vHTFhLh JZ2FLKAR9DzGkuIoFNpaYx6ya3eu0RAS6RtsocvciUlCn2yBe4Bfu/aIeriPFhCHZToSOGgMMlxt CmgVil/Xd92wBB7AChE01VWLOOtqtEy/DsWqd9l3jTFWgK4M3+m7lvqdygdGjU6mCEgPMvb5Wh4o qp0vaM2VZ/hi/WQLiru1nEEYzFdoKQwoQeSbxr8XfKF3o+geX6HiRLf4TfjKR+d0cTUvqjSVFajq GrnAx7LJr43oVqIZVzbNtQD3v5TtM5pvVIj8pqrwn6gKf7AQBHzQdmg1MCfI3k+2fhyDyGxxHetd gR7VeG8DHo+Jb9d4swTvUhzR+IVl9XKrrqKgKFD8dT6WedkeX1XLsy0O/6L2hQIQDE3+z1Nqf4Wo 2uf8P9Qt4MiW2UFw4P9280o3+kSLIEKB1yE4SYZWG3MiI/XCFfDpLiE6BFneXnUhi5pMhM22Ppc5 wXYo8mN2QUpfo9EDe2zy+gxnbq1sQyHnxQI5T0RsK4rCNuwoGvqYtMQR0iJb3nuhQ1GHUnrSdS3Q bvV+Q2R2s6Y3VCiw26NLXlWl44ThTqSJyQ0gUPnEmBH5DDev7MXB1KEKKqLBF59EkgPzRpsHepLq 69MEfvh6PBgGxOWIXkrSIKYW3YzKVD/MQHSnukKUK0Zd95t6mHrzujL0Zdk5TX4+U1oIsxYtMMGx INWybVBzZZcWSbQowKj/UD6Ribtka/ADVYQpp2ogjLsaYCRRgKQyUBmR78UuSSh9fBNTjzEsvFG7 jlr7S4GqCtXGWTAC2DY71Gfk1tUrO9T5VfRqBBmTHbp17quLHVkcIERvb342iHAWY7wZ2hLfCyBq Phz1JgDKrtN6ulBTNnccFEao0TF/dKeOXY7ypVeG7BC8uZ9iTmlL4YBizF83gk2QEyEnRAVjsJCO 2M/4ycSRhiHJku/s39DrkhoKlDcgNUci3Ud77BLUXX66KK+1QujYQVzMn/LTZsUM/3+YFTQtysXG PKB/dhpiDOFhWhmKG95CVLRlMK+RovaB7S0ZTMsFDQU7GLVUEMxk2bAEYYv9v/5aiCai74FUPl6y p5b99uOnXz7+CmNA68F4ax+MrjK1roaab1ytW4YFcURD5PDpx19/opb59PMCEKyHPqH9SLdXPySp 6dMIrJRGCeu99nzdI3WUuwUYe3+q5DAFTRmkTb/8+4Plzqt76t1o1xZuwiJ0LDOP7EhC+FwACtHt r2+clQSY10U6REyIo8uXSXFA2kacyWgP49HrMuOJbRCh565luWlpWqqBkRsx+ybNddk7ctPtZsv3 FSwCqUNV6FJC7CS5Wa+PnZIwgKvJKxZRiNUw6Evso+zwAr933DJs2Dvp7oeiyS/lXtRNSHTE8PTp gpYR5ZXG/8lvEGgo0/FFA2smT6SxOPZ41CPH4sacx/aMmTpgbxOugxCNfx3GJkAaCgYDeqxpsFGc zsf6tThYbk6gIDZCPo7yV2+fyCWODb1jzJLxCyh+QvymJc5i35IeTmcsiqpBgKClyc65ZPjSGc/A O5GjdQetAe9jkVshZqWXiEvfzkvs4ybeMMiZpJfQZFe7iN4yk74iB+vW/lPfSbvZlQOho4vepWhn GF2MhBJDlaMGBmWBZtDKWpcCUT5grh28Qm0pyqMXqWQmpkcI6V4UJEpSddxSlVBmgl7EtLBdbuxI u/R40TN3ZqumsB+0n33YFAZrgcF84eqoHO9Y6SaRCfJBn/ncBEzJJbpP1FeKj/5UGkTgEqHwlTC6 Ch+xM6ttMkJkJmXR1kYvn7DrmzmLeLkqE+7PEXxoXhj+QiWoQdG0JVFR4vmY3i05eUiplkNBvT62 PKFePYJTz5xSrt6IlTev1K1o/5yyPwuGDS1qYDSF2p8AiyHxppbGT2pD9pSdH9i5Rq95f7Tq876x dR07B4oJfev0yyArAhf2oWngu6Ac9DHDdZO92ykYGbSVzmTYRTid0Mp8QmtTLOXIQSAamej/FFV9 /fzcbeuIJVaaRHRjoMH71WzUlmzu9c6ooX8YWQN2GtAFm61DTGDQDoQnSuX9gxZy5e6R2u3ScUlU KGI9CR2uT0YDfRkCrG8JEpaSLOL0mWQUPLSNI4w9nOOWku5HZYxItJqr2FXrBB9wbhdRHQhv6QIz 8Y3Y0O/jQLqIRQN5oS60cZMuavKj/34QC5By4Zz2YGBw6KXTjOFS51iPpp8jtYlq1xrL9UWhYhqy EEmQQCudvkIPQ/h2B91goNxNLJwLFkAnP27oy0vQyXn2+lxjzGqxrrkvjvULFhRhBQ0CPfoEgPEp K4+YfqFJ+/Jc5s9YtLYXEvtSmUdq2WYik1bmNGb0SMwGoZWF9uH4KnxQ2gVZNu1x2KZAu4JzbYU5 NkJlid69I9mcHp2kso8YPdEXfdH1T6TOx1zm2LXNnBscUYeBc14b6GqgqShFdQ4CX072I8fejG89 uoMmmGooG9z+ewyvjwxNs8Btmo18hQJ1dz2u6dgCQdLYD3CkJVH/aXZH8JY6eXrfxzu2NYopIKy2 xSAkuxxALZcs/9Oqf9fnjEmEwpXvMGM14k08U3uRMQW3M8CRIWB88c05I8cK35Qx2YhTPNd7VaK4 F+W9SGs4Qrmu/uc7bjdLN47xBF9L/LBI2yTtInvS5DiGcLGfQBXixglvsgHYvJuJ/nyHqb3fO23C pQZeurDGlj1pp/IDcXGESoAfIrkGRZM5jK870HzdS714+YOdDK5nfLh05COXEYcwGp9YIeUohtFW W0i8OlxB4501DqO8Ktado+fd7Ifp07pi3TluQrcDunydkROW54v9nfGTb2xnq/3ZacG52ryUp69M puRnbzOH0/IaVYZ3nY51X3M0GTEyFdiTwmHaiDkmpvi2NNE/OR4Dba+dM2J56XIGndi/4/i2Z6UF Qyqy4El20sXvuqNVyLi/+NX8TjtAHDkfVBKaTZZxXunqYkfWCW8T7junElyK3rBSCW3MyA7Q3GcF U7yC9S50ptfzyjeX0F2lRSiiMY4HLf1UiNtCOxgOiMXilR43yytvmfV8d4tExwc6ywHU6QrM+s0L dCnJmxXoznETPG46D8pk5wp0ARaiK/QslxEE9sJy+1l3V7s76N6raSRbM7MhK/R2w8WJjjl9EYCJ ykJnsXX9jQ2A3lZH1wBYJ5DKCkYaAKQaKi6W7zLKmxcZ27QL4krMag2NSeqcTY8mNEOfMO12+OjZ 1s2yXuDbdRiAIgoW+uIrWQ6kK/mNZGYSyu5ew2d3/qcBsBZwL5JiWe4t2hgAEuWWAhJL9upjAxnl BlyhFg5dwe8FEvfSV0s2X0ir/PlvFgda1QplbmRzdHJlYW0KZW5kb2JqCjE3IDAgb2JqCjM4NjcK ZW5kb2JqCjE1IDAgb2JqCjw8IC9UeXBlIC9QYWdlIC9QYXJlbnQgMyAwIFIgL1Jlc291cmNlcyAx OCAwIFIgL0NvbnRlbnRzIDE2IDAgUiAvTWVkaWFCb3gKWzAgMCA2MTIgNzkyXSA+PgplbmRvYmoK MTggMCBvYmoKPDwgL1Byb2NTZXQgWyAvUERGIC9UZXh0IF0gL0NvbG9yU3BhY2UgPDwgL0NzMSA3 IDAgUiA+PiAvRm9udCA8PCAvVFQxLjAgOCAwIFIKPj4gPj4KZW5kb2JqCjIwIDAgb2JqCjw8IC9M ZW5ndGggMjEgMCBSIC9GaWx0ZXIgL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2RlID4+CnN0cmVhbQp4AaVWTXebQAy876/Q Mbko+81ybZL2pbckvJezQ9at09hOAB/676tdMAYM2EnxAZ6NpRlJM9oPuIcPEA6UQiHS1IFJLCRG odNQeHiCDVxdlwLyEjim3DgnNT0pmWpBf2ufWJlTII7h1/AJD/R7IjhaDfkavmX0JRdCQpaDNvGt 5pat4SrLBHIQkC3ZBdD18P0aAS4he4XbjECGWDzBlC4wEkPmRAaEyzofjOR3mhLyRDUoWI1iLjdc dFI6dHXSxFDSmE/IwKvwbDlG1qYO91zPzcJGimadbeOcVzPCTdfP3dtfkFwouCkWywqebu8ebh5h +/zq8wrKd5+vlqt8Ua22mxKW2wI2u/WzLy7ZvshDLJoqrq1S0EU0x4x6d2jZMBq10CYahT13HFgY h5pa4cvtrsg91f7XqqyKlS+h2sLd7eOPyOR99/zWUIPtBqrfHspqsXlZFC9lQMTiEA0Rac2JH3W5 h2uOYBiQyXIFglZ+jWBVLPI/OF28dpZ7GXpQWV9HvVme1e6YdgIX7TC1jWpMVDU0t7lMUY+kxigf qy3yRqxCoWS1YuecZAqNMhiF2HoJ54KRl5xARrq48bkPg36mNmppLNb+0OlQDUWuk5ARaCU75nM0 UoYUm3CSTA8vO4Hy0Pi6zm399llr+/m/CkqJJljZ5yt4gHfE16Lj2qZgm+hnzUsxHdCQadOasZ8L 6KcDWoGy7shnEEbXqFfPkLIll+dODgFS32kiw3ab73XtY9N4hRBohfly/K84ZGtpYdBFitaBtry3 ZYdV0AkJPDFtFZqp6nGfdaS+T1BSrdo1q1DH4wct971VsPaoQd/tjx8jSz8w4CmqzpYZa8sxNDKK 6aaQjTVj3o09T7aaDncY8m64doJOuMVgVUTGdGKgw0rXmaKRjB3L0nimoHd7depxgWODb0ck+rpJ wxElmpJUyJtm3f8D6oRBaAplbmRzdHJlYW0KZW5kb2JqCjIxIDAgb2JqCjcxMwplbmRvYmoKMTkg MCBvYmoKPDwgL1R5cGUgL1BhZ2UgL1BhcmVudCAzIDAgUiAvUmVzb3VyY2VzIDIyIDAgUiAvQ29u dGVudHMgMjAgMCBSIC9NZWRpYUJveApbMCAwIDYxMiA3OTJdID4+CmVuZG9iagoyMiAwIG9iago8 PCAvUHJvY1NldCBbIC9QREYgL1RleHQgXSAvQ29sb3JTcGFjZSA8PCAvQ3MxIDcgMCBSID4+IC9G b250IDw8IC9UVDEuMCA4IDAgUgo+PiA+PgplbmRvYmoKMyAwIG9iago8PCAvVHlwZSAvUGFnZXMg L01lZGlhQm94IFswIDAgNjEyIDc5Ml0gL0NvdW50IDQgL0tpZHMgWyAyIDAgUiAxMSAwIFIgMTUg MCBSCjE5IDAgUiBdID4+CmVuZG9iagoyMyAwIG9iago8PCAvVHlwZSAvQ2F0YWxvZyAvUGFnZXMg MyAwIFIgPj4KZW5kb2JqCjggMCBvYmoKPDwgL1R5cGUgL0ZvbnQgL1N1YnR5cGUgL1RydWVUeXBl IC9CYXNlRm9udCAvUFNVQllGK0NvdXJpZXIgL0ZvbnREZXNjcmlwdG9yCjI0IDAgUiAvRW5jb2Rp bmcgL01hY1JvbWFuRW5jb2RpbmcgL0ZpcnN0Q2hhciAzMiAvTGFzdENoYXIgMTIyIC9XaWR0aHMg WyA2MDAKMCA2MDAgMCAwIDAgMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCAwIDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgMCA2MDAgNjAw IDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDAgNjAwIDYwMAo2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDYwMCA2MDAg NjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCAwIDYwMCA2MDAKNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgMCA2 MDAgNjAwIDYwMCAwIDYwMCA2MDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYw MAo2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAgNjAw IDYwMCA2MDAgNjAwIDYwMCA2MDAKNjAwIDYwMCBdID4+CmVuZG9iagoyNCAwIG9iago8PCAvVHlw ZSAvRm9udERlc2NyaXB0b3IgL0ZvbnROYW1lIC9QU1VCWUYrQ291cmllciAvRmxhZ3MgMzIgL0Zv bnRCQm94IFstNjU1IC00MDkgNzY0IDEwODldCi9JdGFsaWNBbmdsZSAwIC9Bc2NlbnQgNzU0IC9E ZXNjZW50IC0yNDYgL0NhcEhlaWdodCA1OTUgL1N0ZW1WIDAgL1hIZWlnaHQKNDYyIC9NYXhXaWR0 aCA4MjMgL0ZvbnRGaWxlMiAyNSAwIFIgPj4KZW5kb2JqCjI1IDAgb2JqCjw8IC9MZW5ndGggMjYg MCBSIC9MZW5ndGgxIDIzNDg0IC9GaWx0ZXIgL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2RlID4+CnN0cmVhbQp4AdV8eWBV xdn3zDnnLklu7r7k5u77mtwl+wLcQFgkgKjIHmUJqCwqAiqiRSpUEREtiGwuVaBCrSKbDSJWDVjf StFX1NJiRZu6vI2pn6XVYrj5fjP3BkLa9/v/y83Mme3MmXnm2WfOWXLb0jmkmNxLRDJ+6sxb5xL+ N/ERQmTx2Qtn3prLa924/m727UvYFX9F3xMiPDL31hsW5vLqB3Bdd8OCZfn7dXcS0jz+xjkz23L1 pAfX6htRkMvTSlz9Ny5cgnbsT1NCCFUuuGV2vl77DQp/snDmnfnnkzPIu2+euXAOa03IRFbuvvWW xUt4llz7G1yfu/W2Ofn2dDIhhU8QitKh9FFSQO4iMiIQLckQHSGKLwt/hvlSXo82Xzm+zl6vafwH 1Sl5d8/e+y/2fPL2S+Yz59/seUXuVL6MrJy3ZxW4R67MorF80/k3z78hd16sYbXsb2hTr3AvbSIG ItIMUSEeTLKIB/G4ngxGuo68griWl9TwdDVpRUkV2YS4kpdX8PI0aUNJkpeU8ThO/bjKaJTnImQ+ 6sOkCnGIp4P8mQFey1qK1Md7dVMX8eI+Ny9jaZE6eVsHtZNrUOPg7VhapDYyBnEpT1v5HSXUgquM xyI1k9d5zsjrDPz5ejIS9+iolpxHOx2vYWmRanhaxeMiHhfSAuJAKxaLVEn+TgqRU2KdRKog/42e ZLg2Iyfn7WU8lvLtJJ4TeSxwiFJSjraEzYD0olyNVWdX1uYCsIDdr0aOpUXgJFqTH3j9efIvcg/q z/McS4vke6JH/B35J9mImu94zXfk10RCyT/ITJSxGhHxvSj7BzmH/mS8RiT/aOoFrkko43PidSJP i+QbYsJdf+P9dZOvSRHu6uY5lhZJF/mcWFDWxcv+Sv6Ht/grz7G0SL4iTsRfkl2IvyB1iD8nfyFK 3MPuFHlaJJ3kRQZPXBkE/szjzxiGkU95+izqRfIJT/+Jx3/k8R+IEeWnye85RE7zMpYWyUe85kNe 8gE5QJrQ+wc8d4rH7+fWjLzPV4Ctn0je4zXv8vgkKUXJ73gvJ3j6HV7+W/JfbK3Jb3mOpUXyNvkN 2slwZaNnaZG8RY7zMhaL5BjDdNLBKIS8Sd7gNW+SAMv1slV6Iz9/ViNyTBXJUfIqeQi9HuW9HuWr +So5QqagjNWIiNlqHkGvQZSxGhExW0tWIpLD+XkfJmnk2jlcfsV7e5nHh/i8DmL9c/A5yEsP9r6L HliJSPaTfXwM+3nNfj6GfeQlPgZWI6KejeElspePgdWIyLEx7M3PidWIPC3S4SQMrG9mMXmBr+kv ec/P8/gXPN4D7BDJczz9cx7v4vEO8iyjUx6L5BlGp+RnpAXx0+Qpxg9wZfBlaZE8ye95gmznmMFi kWwlW1Aq47FINvMWj/GajeCY9ajZyPvbwLgM+Smvf5Q8wnGaxSJZz2iXPEzWkQhaP8ypkqVFwIKt /VoeP8jjNeQBtJaRNfwJLC2S+3nNTzhmr+Y4sYrchzIZj0XyY16/EmMRAVdwPLKC/IiMQP0Ksgc5 lhbJMn7/nbzfO/gdt5OlfPy38xxLi2QRT9/M44VkAdGgl4WkAjUsLeLpbMTzSBbrL5KbyI3gZTJc GaWxtEhuIDWI55KpnDbnMu5G5vCntpEJvHUbX4XZZBYgJiOzeY8sLYLnzICsluFahhxLi+Q6jJvR CYtFMi3f7zR+F3uGCOxhY5qc730yh+wk4uL8cBKvm8iff22+xbW8jI1FxKqze68m1Xy9rua5q3gP 43l6HMf2sfz+MTxuIbW4YzSvvYLJLTKKp0dynjCC86zhvGQY52JD830PJXeibRPvO4N1ZZwrw+8f ks8N4T2wGpEM4nEj76eBx/U8ruNxLWBcgvtrOSRr8k9gZSJPi6SS91XBW6d5nOJxkt+RIHG0LOcl XN4iz+AQ43GUt4kQBUrCeRwP87mHOK0EWaumTeBETA758VS2Pn6Oqz7eg5fHHh5zScxXQwQ8JN7W ybHCASiKxJ4vs/PWNsA7jN5sPMfSIrHmn2DlZexpIqQAG6+Zx1w6QxPRcwnBYhFakBaQlvFYBOaq IelluDL6Z2kRuJWj3mLehwrrzyiKxSJgX4C+ZTwW0R8rU+TbKzgM2L0iWuTmI+McgKVF/FhryvGG cAlLacnqdTT2//Ef+f9r7A6uooJXHwa3+A05gdQuUijYhFFkOfD4APLbyfPkmFBIN5EP6BD6K7KB rqGv0za6hrc+gQ6MYgLYo6KvS0qhC3e8gLI14MUn6J+l0+SPwN115I/iVrJMHIKaZeQFOlUcCj1v kWTk+R1o8wEhUp3YQDbRQnqEnqZ/pGvJLvoWxdPFyeRb9LdG3C4ewijXSFbyrVghCnjSJjzjOd4H +kX5ZlGgz9CPaTc5RCx0Ln2BqshzwmY88w56Hjx8E1lDy8ij5FE6BDxzlvQ0ylaCH7LfN3jKZrKO /hbzXofwujgG7V/AbE9QG8Zxghygi0ibqKQroS9m6XlRLVpYX5CF9+O3gWwW7qMj6KOCA5oUg8A6 xET6p/RM7oeMC3DrxjPXEY/UzX4yNVkq2DAStEHpOrlRPpG+JZTRX9G3AOk2wSKsowuh0xBipW3s LrEQ7R4VxokryDrxPcEKjWQd5rCSLpeeEXYIc5FTYSbr6WZhKu7aJDSAZy+XG6VCwI//ULqOzVQY JTshGyRzYM6bxO10vbidHKVyYsV1OXlS3CRfDZjdQfcAevcw+JNFgFqb9DRGegt+ixCWo6/JkHHf QKLdIiohgU6w0WLUFkCqkEEKfSwCpDxkuWwRdK3FwntkMY83AFrLIHc/wWjwt6IXY9oMCZ3MKOQy CQtJ4m7tXiFwRdvezFWT3b+Z4imLD8i6tQr3XjJ+b/Ey9696e8dPlmyyKXtl9r1iQLlXCvg+/d8q Py2Lt4yf7P4VHTa8Od/t8BnNKLxmMp6Af1aMxw1vLsPIpBNkLgKudLJ0QlDiuh1hK8JClLPrM7ie wFXClaUPIezLlZGTuLLwdq4du6c3i/wEhHEIsxCGIkxHaM7nj+LK+q5DUCF4EEYj4PmkAWE9Amuv RhAQ7kdg985AYG3YeI8grEZoQ9iF8BXCjQiH889n6akI7NlsHOx5bMzs/lEIEbTrwvVqBDaOtwCK nJ1MgGFy6KqEuKFlwMiCPd33J4LPy3hGDjnAjOgCyIgi3FGMtBpyRQuJo4cMuvRnhBVkhpwqgfwq hTyzgzcQSEAX+vdASyPEB5kZwDVIQpduu5gKQ35FIZHj0IXKSYIkSQoaeQUkexVkfA1kfx1kUANp hK4wmAyBLtGUv9eL3u8Cf+um9fQuuoseF6LCj4CtT0tDpRdkRtkOuVk+Rr5LUas4ohyqfKGgueC/ C28rUhZNLHpD5Vf9rnhq8XNqvfoNzSqtpL1XZ9c9p5+q/4PhIWPQuM90uzlsftpSaukqabbWW7tL G0v/adtrL3dUOn7jnOHscr3gPu5Z4A1jJAKZm90kzZXtgDRUEEumQCJyqpQJEkm8c+adFNGeeufU O0mDzqMLeHSeuRLpWSzaev6S3aRQf//tbfIIm4xAJ4sLxaWyqYCujwzOhNxOi0mtkolKPXm5VLnf 73PbSk16udOsUxcoRSJXCZJZcPq1p7rOdFnqdHpLHR7U09iZttQlqTcYEqsqqxto2uygopr6PP9W IqqsZsllMc80W1yS2Zq932oRXWbLDIvZiay40Bqki1TWkhKrKrs+aL08h/FSQSkuFI7x8fozfKQS eVm5X39peHqMLTeqzv84JmEqG0GJ5XpLCRtB/pElVmsJfySeQbdnbxFT0jHgkyejEws0b9n2O1XE 8IicynUmJ/pv7UyzaXfWYdJGuUIumIxmi5OajHIfZhwUqir1NYNpRdospobpmuuSKeskg9Y1Jj1/ 3qQp9bOCWoO02bQ28lT2+4fv+8ddQ/ebzNamUVvo+PbdtOKR62dY2Ri2XhxDRcZbINre0ux3Wgus otVgtUQKImLEELEon+IjMqgIBtV4rqs11do3qsrqmmp9VWUwVE6xIhiJxaw3GQUFFsUbpFub9cPq U+nSiUatpwWjmjJlcGtQa8w+aVwTeZoWrLv3u7uH7jcbrU0jN2dfaN+dfeeRWdNLGb5QujB7VCyj Y0B1ZZnSEr2uSFIXEqtaPGFlmUIJ2pzCarJeXIR39HV1OrYQgynDC4BIQfkgEhRDa6Q19BtlqeuP Gr0kZb9WlKhFhXKEVitQi9egKpBpFRc6NHpBLFXoVUUFMnCNreCEFUICHMGTQZkkSor3yLtajVJB pCJRqz3VwRf/HFt8gzc4iGL2HoaPWJtjRovFKA6ylDoNdKHVPM9gNhvm6RnXoPSZ3m/FGJ0InmPM FIinCt5XyW1EhWlgoc91JQMciLkFps8snDRlwcLJkxfsGNc2a/z4WbNAiyd6PwELU+N+C1mQmSZv V5F2/VHVByUNRQ2KSlopaylqUTTTZtk03bTiCYb5uvnFbYZtRdsUG+lG2e6i3YpddJesvahdcYge kh2nx2Uf6T4q/r3h95YvdF8Uf2n40uIvUJhEhcZeguFgVFjpzp4ubTeoDtinr0hjtQXRK+i0LK3T CsLcxffeu3jJvfcuOfLxx0eO/OlP0orsN9//K/s3qvvX91T7www6m1bRSjo7uz17Ar9tufWVCBHP y5TgoE0Zv0dbCJ+XWHzUpesoKXSX6E1aYi1wSW65SetwyzV2avdqT7V2nOrpYKxAh7XWgyEkutI9 WIZkbqGBfzUBTg0mHRCRwRB8gfMJHb2juFjmCnndNFJkKjKYn56SDIcv7AmHk1N2SSlB8DlK/AXj RdHn/OG4I+zHX9ghvof1gqeBiH8GvCvI6sxsvxz6SHH7CiM1OiKBDsdR4rQuV90lW678iXeN9JRy m2yrtNW2yfWEdYdmh36PfI9ij3KPbI/0S+vOQLvyYOAVxSvyV2xHpCMyeyJekQyC0fllSm9A4RYL FXF3wCJWArF+faqji00TE60D/BNdPR3a463dbNZ1ST6lIbS6hoDqfF4wBQVjBmzyubkbqVxDPfm0 3MQokRZWVfza4aihU++aOWSxT14cKPc71YbMq7N3fZJ9flL5cvq2FPJ4gmB6zpJYWdN+u72Sjnhs /urKuNIwLD7Y7zEMvuLD7R3ZV64qvz1WFg+KGnGsy8fwmRzq/UT8HvBJkcczS4jD5GtPBmkw7mg3 adpV8g/iR01pqcxYdrX/avU07Wz/bPVN2lv9t6qXG5c7l2s3QtXdmNro/2n5Rtmj6p3lO1I76NPq ncVP+/eq95MDqX30QPle/2tKj4lY3YqEXnGrSMUZkVsjQkRrdVsFa4EzrT3X0drReqoVyKqrY/DS dnSd6wDG5mGWpH0MM8egKtLVjF/hV1VZw4CWg2MOhjm8EYWlK78/tvnrmEv3wfQ7Hrthqi0+4Wq3 adyM26dNeMlsD5x9YPvJ2cJe9+67Xvxk6QhnaO4DC6Ys18lEWVNDoSipbhx9/Z03+m2Dlr364E0P MPm5DzjULVMhVUu2ZGY/SA9Tgbod9lKTUREoiWu0Mako4CEdiaJUQUfJUTFsqjVNFOYKtws/ETYK u4SDQkEsXJtOeKW4WzCqRI3cYXcXiCZRTkgVrYqH5a5C4tCEadiVdK/QUE0diOVUY2crBKb2eLqV IRNjj5x0+rCquzt9qjHbeDxfmGylugJIVk4vVcAycDSAB+y0Im0xuxgQQVWMw4OwNKC4GDXlqUw4 nF1NNUmvL7QkW2a1O2Qi3aXWa+QaSZqr1lWYSzRGuyAqFTbHBF8GdEdPCLsuTM1WuCJ+z3Nu5/Bw HNrEO1a1QKlWsJkvKH1Oc4FGGfGXPucK+v2MX3C+J/ZwvucnMzPD3TavylRwWoPJfiS2m7zttqOm DwKSz+ibYJ4gzFfOl9qENvNy5XJpibDEvKp0lXGVdpdPK1c4vXriVin0nhJ7QHuus6dT29l9kcn9 s7Vbz7gLpK05hyegsFAfLfkY1yNg8lg2Jozp+h/PnbF8RdvMFebqVeOe/PjDnx/7ml5HXTMH3z4u 8eQxunr5tp/eftfmn24eMaL7hUP/Q+uojE6gT9hDGYEWOLO9nH5O9naLXVI3NL2ZmYzT4jJLpV4V nI1aVUfph+Jh301Fq8la1VbV1qJnyW7VfvKKqr2o0GIuFQ3FXpuqSAadzKksdipnGKjBx3hkR55F QjzleHcHyEJXh2VOBrBqQo5XUA8XjljtIWyJ85JLISxVqg26kUaLKNI1WUn0+7weSgvBF4XHHLbC ImOJWqtWagqlWKLM6y8slKbanVYsRcgDFCcnwQuyedmUII9mFvtLNC8W0II/iO1RU7vzaPSDZKFD 5ip1mFx3Ke+SlhYuFVaZV6l/XPhjYa1xrXatcq20zbEtttG1MbKtZKN/W2KbdaNvY2CHb0fgF4lf WHfbd7kPuQ/5DgXa7e3W9vKgv0SlV3h8ckVIpbD5QkRRZk9CanWcA/Wf685zAy69zrX+jutQl1bV 0G+FDX3KC9Ma+nELunj1zbesfmDB/AcK75t7w3333XDDjz0zZ/3pl3s+mzFnzoI/Hzz42QI6ed6q e+fduHIF7Z79oxVtM+65J7ssuWHWtrd+88j8jcnIU/N3vvvfP5/7VA6H387zyhLYCwszV5EC0agx e0/DJy5+ZG8vMLdrPig4GoACLxVZbJYJnmm2aYVtjjbPfNv8wiWOJZ7ltuWFDEgPqrcpt6l3W/YU mq1uolB5XAq9V87xuetcTydb9y4GA6AzkJnjc99qc5lNuBABdVfrDVyIQK0Euoujq38MNP5gV8c3 2Z9l/9A66I4ry588Jrtv7sw7fzR75r3C9OHNX//y0F+zx7I92d3ZG+zBjCgUOGB0nbmbIfqWDUzP 5/oNrH+mn7gz2oJTouaU6X3x7yV6uU1FSqA/djGdlo8vyZSmnKT2BnX90pc0nz4NSDiRV4GyoYu6 EHTE18UQnsXg2ZQJ9GmJAfVJ0XvK/nfxBIpMOWVRbjX5FS6bNaA91XOqi/E8yAoMA6rN53nNEbrD f9AcIVcN/Uf2VUGJ42SxDlpkVmlQKwvEoeBBYgzjvPnmKZMXnPPoVQUi1MkvtGq4C+X6IqmwSDw0 rm32lVfOhv7Wm4Wl/pH0DDhakmzMpFuEaYIQFtsLSbvrz4WdCY9D1HSEzUmxSK2BFeJ0uT2qeGmZ FtRdHihTxOMp7anOznOtnZgCFKDGLks6B0o4B5qsgH8z+oXXElcXghNBg5+a14gQ2M3EjeBBYO2S Cpm2q6tL26VgF2XXFNJKPdBPOZNgXMHCrIv+qlTIoxhQQjfTLR+t/+mgVGwGddSEtPR+XXU4WJn9 Zkws0dQ6MytNnDk0Gbsi+69MNNpoEIig94QiLkeoJ+HE1RUJurq7XUGWCjkZnYjw7hNpMWCkhLWY JrdnrowUfKH43KZt93ZaSYdeikgBY8QY8AemRG6S3RS5SVwmLpMti/wk9qCotnutBslVmo7rI0Ft IVX49HJSXBx0mYNScdxcQDSliQptT1e641RXh7ZD2w2bgZMIE44gnER3Osv+wSxzAiBGq/oSBk42 MDt1eWWBi4I8x+B61qN/OrJ1Q/uX7z285u4l37+dzfh88Ws8nrFxv5e+f+pPzcMW3DT16tSdN6+7 /uZbrls+9bop1//QzTXN1a6IL7DziStvD4YeWjBtU9IO0wy61bjeP0tXS69jpe7MTFbGlWXCNN18 3XLdWt0m2zbds8ldtv3JV0yH/d+XfR8vXmI/YBeIoUAlWo+5wqqvDB3il+X7wwdTMMlMQUvQtKRk iXFtZEfZgbICrVlOUt4Cc3EsmWJqfkdXTtWEqs8k4nHGNvR1rcnWRVz+AwHMVczmhNZUDsMuZwhc VDjl3NojkI3ADPGZQr834JTckaFGhWR4ZOZLH57eV39nve06oyuWyEzYc9132aN0xHdD10grbWZ/ 7azdRQnPdXZNy/XZC3/4Q/aCx6MeFnE6a8I1lbSVamkxbXMz+T+rt0daCpxQwY8yJVNfYFG1O8WO qIl0ODuLbUqbFFPGpAZlg/QL7+7QK8pXpEKNs8QkmfUeIi/2V9j0le5iojGny9jipzvT57rYsufW vKsrfapLm208lgw4ge9MP2SatS5PBxcXvEFMEx1EBGem9A73EOc///L5hUTK9GRZIBBr1GsbywKh 2JMf/4uGr72q5aPdxuvXieKZr7tPCyJb6JBTXO0OB3zZ17J/W905cdxICWs8FLheh3kNIg9lxofL EzGP32XSFlTUVdcriL/b9UWsmyToNwma6HIUtFv/qu1MKTqq/4cM0ttN2kIFlZRSuTsVSttTJhKi 34RoKOnU1JmqiiVlYrC2pwNT7WnsaF2k7U7jP6cCMtaXgP6XZaF1UWe2k4kJpiDW6XUsrktW5FD8 0tRpXkVA+SAKP09Omebm7r+XHE74A7GxmUxLWSBYJtZ7fYzSL3RRucPvs9n9flv2vGBklO/39OF/ wBcJdVWG42PXZ1+sqo6WjT7cEk0O92WHPzM2Hqnr8QcBq+mA1XTAqha2WEtVojodDsbsJbpYd/CL dDeppt9U0+ouv67d/deSTjXpUChIKGD12Uv0aqWkLaISqQqlyn0pu0TK6TfltLwmoLGbirR12jMd 6Q4OJTAEDiWOGgwogAWD1eWg6gMSWER/3ij05wvAk/8VVMJ1oWjQ780avP5QwjNkyJiY3ysu9fp8 3qjzwqdUafe7HTav3579fp3H7wsEfAG3yFlEJJTNgqcwGJVekQ5Gs+lg+gpHdjhg09z7qbRBehOe xE2ZG0cnpyWnmeeb5yfvSS43r08+lXwq8az7FfPhygPV+90aTzocivn1JTqiq9XQ9iFKqvxbbUdJ 7Kt0h/9L5/6Sgw3mSnN1sDJYvaRiSc0Oh0JToFUphTJPQiYLpWQRolFpq4ptyQbOO3o6uTxlkOIK J+Mg3dlWIBvHKAZCaNStgarLuGaM6pi2BVJy5zmHhevZOYy6nNGIO753OkoDdG+p1RMtVunr/nBr 9lz2EB12vnnN6EKfPeHyRistSlngwSn7P+zqqFv2fLfbE7R7PAF79q8lNlOhN0knUohQOtflKrXU znkgFcoYCq+cmL1w5s/Zc5A6FHvYRJoH3BpBlmVGeduHf17hd4u69lhJ57AqDQ5vNCoqyhqrpcrk sEGxgBT2aQpK9JJW5S4FCUokE65t9mnqkpWVDqnWQzSVJlWlNj0Srrv0O8xrqe1MZ3G5aIExBSQv wbstqGJRNxM5DJ/yOvol2hNyxRQu1jxZXizJ35ET2LjDQ+8Y1pCMjvxjf4703vhYdUsZ/aS5LlU2 +a0yfyBaXaJtjEfHnLwqXnlFKutZ5w5EXJcYlCsSdmd30OleSGWUenqW98ln+jSD1VHASg1YeUlN xuXWtlsYtcnVSotO0hS5S+VEcoh1Ho2xqE7j054BA2Ju2/x84bLpSicDecLJT6dPojZQT9+EdOKm sbHY2As/S/iD8bGffdZSHgyWCdeDsZS1fLbOEWYjg48GZBHw+f0RVw/b7MHYFkJmbsDYEuSqTEWR YUJ0QnlbtK18SXRJuSIRDNj1NnncFf8CDqZ2RafpYFJbqCvGEhJNsc4TSNmS8MSd6+jp4KgL0mfO LzDO48y1CNUobx9fGiWncghF7v+DuuSkQGB2YWJEyGa/bYn7QmVCWcLvi49e+cbvr9szwWd2+Eu8 SkmSy80/nv7g3ZK+bw4XVv7lt7EyQyD11xE+g77Q7i/01NiunLbtRcyrDjC/BfMKk/GZqLJITgxi wNRu7xRDho6igCvotZsNxZJRixpvkKTk9VZtUGOMaM90dUDWaWEU9vG0HEM7DjWHkaYOxi7Xbx2U sSzP/2NFPOInzqjfH/T2rEn4/bEx99wzmsk7+iaWqGzMc4KRbmiJoyD7si/0HxaHQnYT6XXMoYls zdwia9JgC8XUlCCBpipHVQC+y6bKTLMDvsum5swc8qLjxcAz5DXHa4F92H4J+J2OJqrwDPJUF7UP kjorgzaxuKPM6HeSJipzBEoydoda2ahqsGt0Q4qjmWBAXd9Y3VA8aHBQkxpS5RoKW78r3Xmus1P7 ufbzbnaF0Mvp0DkKTB/X5xbZcNEOiFHD5RyeFuVcjaEirG9/1g/bO48awAHhxo/UqfIdbk+kRmu3 NEH7y35RH02PjJmOa+LxaFz9tp7RaEP2S/DyJrNDWxP1uneUp4ppl3Cb3+3zBB09tznC4PphqAzT L7weRVfCkJ4d7kDYzQH7sCPo8bnhGaHE0/uNtAYwbYCOWBv0VHnmem5qkML1lZ4Gt8yuTHv17VF7 p5Z01Cjr3Q0e87Di0FBPKFFZIRvaEKoorrTrCpoasbPS2NnBfCFZDpe6OpLogNBr7E5znpWEdfEa NxqwUcVMCPw8MBm0XVNSpDWQN5sG8q2KJN+isdCLitRFtpUjG0onVoyuLo9dcR74FGkwWCc0VNSF jdeVB6z0+9DI6lR02N+Sfl+sTmVLpSy2C115PsXoHoqURzDFeraKZh9nXmF3j85hLioXHwMfEMho yMP7IA+ZHTooE1d1iPqOgv3iwRK/wW+J6WLFDcWVhkpLg44Z1KsKVwkqTTFpNhXLk8zxfa6/41tL fN6cjCKUu7+hHMIVLt2Xfffrv2ZP0vLur2nywp+fe/3153a/9rpwdbY7+zM6AydLjbQ1+/QFFaWf fUZpb+dn3OWDseHML9djlKDm6zKDaDuBy7QEFmCnuaBDE/QG/dMU08T5ivnicsVyUemymrWSxaAp UApBtxxHrYp9qhDR+IbbDRYQOFQ86C6wZPqESp8V82ErvPbMacf0WcPl+NpfVYHEwWCPvvLE9ie2 m1NxIKbFC7Vj5YjJ0Evoyb/3nP/Hi5I+m1yydPGSnuUef9gdgKqS00iOvPzy4exJzKkBc9oHPFSS DPl5ZhKbwPRGNoW55beXK8oaabixfEhBDHMdoh0iDCkl7Z7OhKWgo1pbnawI2yw6j2Q1ljfGlMKQ uoQyTLWF3iFSMamQFYeLa2G2hZ1Ga6KJKbTQ1KBgcC8Xo9jctBnGMmwFV8O0UQgdliNtHdA1QRoR l7PdV4Va2wWTl6EtzIs+4IiXU3N/RS633QavkCXPC2AUQDsRy+EApfeffGjdg2s+aK5PRuuze73+ cLmnvh4c30d3bXm8ctjYdT8qjRje9tRGfd5FqYRc/HXD2CGrJVt2wZy2OXN7bmP0zJW7h+0hr9fh K9t47eKdbk3Ynn3HFfQFRskl6pvCDqCDztf3vi9VYK9wGHkz80ikfmTDGutPGjY0bLFu1G5PPQn9 bqf3F8N21bUPO9hw2HrAq4uGvWUBIi8UG0qs9VKTq+yryqKv9LAJmyo7Al+69jcdbDYPGZOenp6j bXO2VbXVzTfMtyxxLqlaUrfcstywVLtau9awqnGVc1WVcX5qeWptStQQe32JtcGbkteEIya5XREx jRhcM0JhbwYSwv2ekzHM0wjNj+8RQhXs6uMpbKVyUpUpg9yESuT2DC198rIyyDfruDjKaYOu3F5n Xh0E1eU80Zx90KEyfygaEYthepWqinyP37TyZ7Ov33jy6IVXa+4aK9i9ca+kDvurHGq15+4rlz2+ aMnTL+w9/96oh31lvlTNl/pkeGLMPGLMXddfOUNtdDz96JZ3HS6HuTT1XqEvNDpqSlffOXPMZK3R 8vOHn/utl68Bsz8WAcdT5JbMELuNpKA72Ez6AjmR20vEpL29uLPM2REMlSWi7qDDp9brRJupuLAA fnpbyjTKN9IBwTzKoYmOTKThxmGOm074KfN02weevL2RPp7mvom6pEKtMHB4VSWrqyCduF8G/ktu kgMVPbo8A+7b7xJ0nm8EV5nPJxQK/qA4J+inRUIwGHYKhdlPt3Lb48JJbntszX4qqlsiAb9LS0cH oDBnD+nd1O+LtFCJkXqf8ZHDQXXvOeko5o8zhJnEBC0Nh7RhmKs6NY4Xlyg6/Qcj7qKESQBv0rk9 2rDSLpmu0GLvrugKKYL5nmrlIreVa1XMcwU0yZFpk5ZoQaEEPev6xAsv0fBSlHM/FSQOd1HlhS2D A1OXaQHbbGYGaV8B357wJrDrl46ChSUaIvHkzfC9t6xOlEXrKQzSaKUqu9nlt9cNjQgSHFJM2AZ8 PZvFG32cKKH0Xt0SmIcNFtCegHU/hnnXk7WZ9GteOrJ0Uqng9dJwXaxELGxP6zqloMNdnVAL1tJo jCrribegEJBQjzZVj040sKn3zTzReJxr+4w5NRlJAeZXAJ5ZSgqRsvITJsxHx54aJfVIxfCLstlr lXDSydiFOelaEfKKisU2cPo4EsFcF9BS8glxIHzani+wOMsc1oI3Zz1RHovU0mFmbzCoeljUGUZa SgpO/1phtrYYcXxAFQq5LbS5JhIrWwdATHTr9LYLu0Sb2xd0hhxeT0+Jy6i3CnsvjLNqDV7xc6/H GXQGfW7MQCD3934h3S8egN5XRe7LTLpLtlaGHVLTY4pfyHYo4NMP7zEdLHzFdVhXXOqwVhWnCogq ao2IZ8+aqbmn4LzW/b3jbPA77fvRH1IxXb3+sF5Mxcqr0sU48eqyklBkvDzsM1Qz5nMOuh3ICAyG +fC6OnvyNijTb/v4DvT3ckCKMREmEy05ksoxm4F7gPkNZA5Fsbnmhoqt+26ZuOK08urX5z728t/P 1N8++OYl437tcgQ/fn7vgdRIbGo9YffL6WG97sbJzZNXjzo5etyu1U++oNEqFt88IRFouHr/i9kG J7Rirxtwae7tlu7DTnIRPHunm64FTy/G+eVinPQx43x7Mc7MmXH2np1rTcLbFQD8NEiz07N2wPUs ziMFKEGNHGkN3vcw4T2GON4f8eEdETtOsLJTrBRnn2T8/NNOeFF34kTTQVwP4qrEOaUI2jpwjwhF zo5zSX5gIeufnd0O4/wTVgJnmfTkWrS8Bm2uRourSAr2bGcndqPZ3gpnV4zVc69pd2cWnpO+CtSB x+cUDw5wkdn2xGSEJhUMcZrNq8t9Bi0FKQvb1+3d/+Dal176Ze1z896mquzXx2/anjaYXw4Fy5tN hmZ4LTY7bWv3Pbz2wP6HHjogrBwxOvt/fnMs2z26ZbythCnGEnFj895owuxnAPfKgHtxsjwzfbV9 vWaL7ynNNvUW/Y74K5rDvgPxQmWRghJRJ11ZdH3RLUVt9iX2FUVPFb1YtMO+11notJz3F+nOStHv /O+XNeubzRP0E8y7g7vDh4OHw0q1kaQ8ignGcGgi8ydiu5mDAcZiB7zK2Q6+4wrLqjV/KCbvJuPO 0zz+sd0XrnVIUC6rKrnrdEMQZm0waAvZk2umbH/zlQ3DllUb3E0BVyj7wXOns59Q9+/HbBFnSB5X suVwIOBKXXXNr3762KuBgMpaFXJduZOa332XWtiBK+iYmP9W4JgfOPRR00TgmAYrqQGOyfAugRJ4 pgGeyXCyVglc0yC2Y/11OP9WDsxj5+QYNz6LE1864FoJSs+i/Dvk30euF9jzA1ow3aoZmDIB1wm4 7gFO7wH2HMb1MOdszJMdwyicOOnBnqBHz6x3E9rF8LQQyieh5lrgeRhn8SYyLOvCxmwHTtYwHOuj aRA129TPox7HMJjjg7hBhoNQDICW/tiUJ2Ff/61ccYNJ13jgpld7qfa3N+xoqJpUEQmdcNrKUvGg u2fvvjUP7ntp7boXTM6rW66hxb85SQ1XjKQrsE0NlPphi8ePE02vP7j35XVrDxziMJ4LGE/FqV87 qOnVpnFkLuB5O8IuHsxkN+a3G2txCHl2Bp9RqwexCdBrJ/eCfinCevR1lveHbRvUfYdW7wNizbhz AsIuWDC7Qbe7sTq7ccdB5A8jfxj5w8gX8jOJeC8RveoxlgLAOoy4BHaGg1PzROLvw1LADf/cUdfV g3MTHKTAU+aw8Oe04Jw3n0MUFAvxGvBwvkmNyv3bluLkizMcLW/74CZQPPV+9T41J27UXJgjrNXs Xr76EH3mkSfuCdodSUuqkipOf0z1veRQbfC+Ox59CAPEaI9AljbIXNCh1jdVYPXZWwc28DsPUmeR Yieu2jFqDcooMVMBZb3APAJ8k6NMizSOYAEGhcgT8KcEcmwvy4LeQrg6QfMhlIQAo0LsfKWZidTT caqjv43EfLpwUsJkALkCImBYfT6pgZwp5+kGJMC7ID4czBPOch6duDUSi4Qu3MbiPTsiZdHwk7/7 /Nb55X79mtSiWXRWJBYPZnet98NB5UckzA4i1Xzw2XSVK1xy/c11EAehC08wuAhkdXaRtFp8EnRT Q75umgl6jeLtBjdoNgq/txtv7bhxMjlK7sb1eYRnkT6C62Hg3n6k2b5IDOdJE3Cq8PckiRfwqaYE JQzCZ4EbDM/YeyBnUaenjNN/h70FCf70ZsC6GVg6AdcJuD4IzNkDObEHq3IY18O4FqD3JM5BJfCs AjzLCQhX4GnrkX8RQUCYAPiHgMMBUouDTF3nWplpisMHOd9wV1cn9lm6AfE+axXqXyu9KJIrg+yU Yz+5DDmdI3Cu3YHAsRZ9zgYqjL5v1677fvzzn9Ok3Vv7X2tuu6nCZ7vVsfHuQRtnvPKPnsNjN7TY HI+Hw+nhelH5zMoVzz67YsWOC2UPLY2PHhtPuhKaB3YuGzn0X6/9+kJd/SiT0ecLuzH7NuDncvDN OvJ20yjgWggYpwJ3ZPqYHxjF5gc8BlyVSJ1H7XdI9QIeXv7WCMPTNOBtR97HHFxIl+C+OEoZ5OoA M/ZeSzVgyGDGTiO7IF99WOUScEIDWk3i6xlC3TXIT0Pbq9FqCqmH/AUbhPmb27IB2l6yqoDEzLPH XMndTBbn7WIUJ2su44tMFJv//Yhc7iBAH9fMeTorug3NYJGbbc4r1o99/JeJdDwczv4z4YnU+ebN uWGbrzHqSWT/GQolmtflRK/ZkG1objqyK9uAjR0//MgO+vTS5Q/Ozc5gO0BMRDNc3wUYj5fNAK6H yF1NUcQ+wIu9O1tAZcQO2PqAlaWAzw+YvxEpN6jbD0jidCzWRAscZvqLG1C5DukMSihfpxDaudEu DJqHF7eVnwljkEHIA4g5oM/hfF2f3zNH2IY+os4bEv39I0JhKDM4HGjKhNppUyjgS/R8Hw5HozT1 ZiSG00wBm0s6sqA2MXliJNhT7IEvGsTuFVbCSeIz4yC5QL7KLhW38vlGye1N7DR4kNOoCyvOZ32R Ql2YO4NBEPNnFBoDJdoxtxBmLsfMgsCn3JxVSPlQGkJPMTitT3VoT+VlY34bBjuanM6YDnzZSYt/ J7IqXX69GRSEteGmQSF/pilMNU5v3X89sGgeCOs2x0/vzi6bmQqHhRCb8Py68imTQ6EfDq9YBXoq Z/R0/y7hJDay2aQp3rgg0mbQUSP5Z9MIYHKcDEcYAV1zKGY1Aemrcd2K+q3wHTFPGHtHzA1IGLHC jai3oh4v96OUAlMkUgzYGEkYsRvQMYLmGtBbEXCkErXsjlLcUYZSbG7jTqb71CKlBP0wLSQEeaki g5i5kO48BXnAKIQdoUin2TEQtufN3UkMUZh1ZiZxvLHKuGoZrg34NZIYK0Fo5DV4/QJXbrVx07Sr ixlqMNCSKeZcYrJzoDBhlBfIHTfiGIeDZGqqoZwkmUzh7Wso3espbQ+FE2OTkYnpSOg1m5N6PK54 lGqC4ZmGosis9KN0+cRYABuC/yceDoWyH9EV2dPhZE4JZhqL2XCh4lu11+J0er2NhYIgq4qvyLYx d5PTYwupYFlScHUisTdsbGRKkwuQRBFka+9FysvRmhI1ClQxOpTwI6A0RrnjQWsUgZXYwe07WnOn cwFGzokYoQHx+pmeugFEJvj2zExFQnQ0plcP2Zq4AC4BwjJJ63JTYEpXjpzwDMrPznwBfetKWto0 D2/r1pLHMKYN/H1FAolpxEzkHNeuhLRTY9SDIE0rOM2wNyrPw4KPY44VwJ8M0t9B5kUZ50HLH2Az +XDPcOAn1hf66FCERjIHYSmCHG9mhDDf4Wg3Cs8qgyysBG44cBfjOIOgsbA3FtWAjRySm6DVbMTT 0daN92BtKGdS/XrU1iA3HfdPQo+MClgZs7bGs82nTuxTaNn2hLa7M8e0cuwLQjS3N888a4lGzufh 7mTb1QzgjLsBnyFOL2PkDAMHUV3fiYachtfnJ7q07QbRysVCLu4TDhx9xdMVg0dP0g+KeH0rYq7m hrIWW6Ax6k2C7wcSzUb9iIpweIvHJESuaxgxzRy9eeTKO7SDo37fsnBQKFs3+95bszPYierwUAfd Na5lUlXlhdNMFsDN4hBWusM+nyUQjw4aPKTxuSM5EzkJj2eOf6yA/dZATjaNBkdQgw8oscIx6Bbs rUxmnZwHRXNJjPXUYTXjWAv2xQImgyuwrkxG+AF9O/RGK+6t4KtWjH7YFxYa4JVgX1eohZZYnJfE OUt3OlpPQnu2QjHU5SSxEZK4FuvFHLJTCNsz+Y/CmC1EX/gP8rifNMZuiCN/vqafv4GrOLrLFzF3 aLPiW0jjaCIx45I4TjR+nPFH6yGN526HNPaPOFQdiUAaM8gGPGZDc58wDnmc0ZDzkjCOOtkCYNZT YcMsFvcBOy1keKaSnNXIz5q+07xf0qxoLmqRtdAJiglF02TT6B7dHsNOy87iw7rDhoOWg8VaMaxq KwjrJ5Yw26Lffkl/u58yiz9n3hJh7tZjx7dsOdYh/Dx75qsvs2eo/8svaWDxm48/fuzY45vfoFM/ zH5DtR9+SDVZ9lUTgQyFTnwfdOIwYP6npknQe/0IIei+Dui+foQQdF8HqIe9YxUAVdkxCy1whWGA AmVnUZoAnrjgTSR451IiCirCe6JAyXdY/xbYtS3gAdNwnYbrTtghu4A3B3E9hKsS8iiNPnXoUwlO pwGcGC9kPC+Op3qRYtoeky5e8Asj6pmVfRWpYnv/TPvtk8FMVeOGVxdcKNzsyp00YcgCqv3fKTOH IzDF4CkIhi6Dbts3wWAgkR0ZjlQMNxiGV0TCcJA077z+baruJW/N29dIq9fu2//gg3tf7CXYyHf7 oeNKakZ0RtPMESOy35w4lm0ZIby49oGX9q55cC+D+TjAfD23QyrJGfim9mDuv8DsnwUkmMX5CtL7 kZaD81qxBngfAhAXoZkwbY297X8WeT+g7QB1nQXlfQf5KQL+CuIA/KvAcwsRmG1biCDgCXr0rOc8 MApthnmjsEZYgUqsSgr9OpBjMp35wJjGwzwGUcA5AIgzPmCA1wDwZryTARwAzRHg/wJxVpls7X8A mOqY0eHPexH6GxkD9OGevWvhn1r70IvC4sH75h/L9lLNf123Y4TN+Xg4mBpmYD6qcHZEIhAO0rce eOGlNQ+8tK/nBbp+REv22O+oZsSImSYjdoncP3yLNfC74Q/E+HFmAXL4FvC6GLmvKQFsCgPj7JzT QdYyvMVMmS+G4SzD4T783ghI7EA4gMDehmd4yrDUiPXR5PE0h5tGYGcRyuJML+4AkJhfBdoOEyVd UH+4Ty/HuJKBy6T0pVMo9BK76rOFFYJExzCN+MJtoXAk9kLzzGQo3GmzX/+7O6bcXOOxLIyN++VN OMPUpxIz7dBk3HPHklF1gbpBt9yJue/r/UqyYO4ZOq3pMXxPJQ0dUYf1TWNNdXj3tgHv3JYi2BDs +MKGgawBrqwCL/8J2jyB+g1cB7DhaifbUL8F9RtRvwn1m4CdW4Arv0S7Z9HuWfTzLNrt5rReDOgl gX/lwOoGYHUpgg3BDnyMwgtRBsimAHsvggc1cWAn9jkhBYrQtx7jY9KjhPODIqxPLd4XDuCt4zCw OkAzaH8Wd5Rg1Qaj7n1yK9YGvAM1TdBJK/GEYnAZ5rsoQr9K9Il3Knm/JqzmHHzLxAPL2kOw9Y42 HtBOAqUEMq6JabGn4L5hkp8vo5a9LAj3Y1crc5H1bYpyOgCy13AnRr+NtrxmCq4DGxvxZceumIvy 0muG3B7f5wlESrTF0R2z5917wz0173z43qtjn5aKBju9HrfPGXcZq+686rrFt7/57q9PHah7aJ4v rcP+5b54sNarq26aOGJk48P3r/ppLJROL61KVPj0qdg1mSHVkuz+dfc/Y7JaLExfp/BZdkuzpMOA yNNN9bDEi8kShFUIGxF2IMjACyyAlBNBDX6QAI+P416mdZ1HjQtl7SgJcq8aSIcqUfo+VjFI3ODn TFYwHVdEWoe7cUIQPw3KKQLOVrfCHGCvUORkON+pam2EwZDzEvUJdvDrPh8Q30zIMe+c54IfBrpo cOfPBeE11TtSZdFodv61N0zLOu2hVMOsJ4YvfSpk1O2JBiuvXRQIxb1imxc2Y3bfjhvnhR2elCXk bxntm9HmouMAfOeJqlgkPeW3DE6j8ObzYrwHnyLPNTF8ZNxRBOangDtM62XvJpeihPl5gpB4BJis Bt/wAhIGcOlSzLkMGB5Aygj4aIDbl3TXcpTjw2now4l+mUU9CbVz0f4alIdQexV8aj1wRDBXRJ7Z Mt7RBzO2/wIwMjzkAGNqad4LexEulzwQOQ015/TpX00Xzlu8cNuakC8Y/SDoKk/BxwY/xIw1Y3bu NDWnQ5HHfTa66EdLHryRPuHxBf2ezIWr3QFm9zSPrnnxJfoGk3L2JEZMSaT3Y+lpwCtIftYUAk/Q wOYMgEaZl1Gexwwn1xugO3J+Kwe0fIBWCPcHAQk34MreDVcAUiJgxng0+7pLCHYP/rklCe9/flMT Ap0ZkHqigXnIjHbGxofzbly8LIjlGI5SdM639tjxe2XuVALeJWW0muPB/3lrk6kB24fCEqcldcH0 sACVqKdxbHWwjlaFw6mh+uwhayoRS1hFLuldobD7wjLhfhyvdzEf14VQjcddi0fT3i7A5T3ApZ6c ahoCSa3AGjPdluA7QBBJmKMPOGPHbJkd3gCORdGWeV9dCBWQ01bAQAmIxTEtCXaNBJg1oAXb0bSh Nduvqsd9zBfmxx3FkN/16D1CbgCVU6QMSKkI2yPFJinbw8ORO5xYxu6w9jjkN1AnB0ofAMZG48e1 Ar9KYkOKaXyluCrZM2XcCM/FU5gFzl4NB6wu3/0ElcbwxYycuWPjG6WXAK7I3yLMWFkYDvvD2r8U RAOhIC2qDpp1ujJ3/fMri8Ihf0R7z86S2PCkv5KqXC5/+tPiUMgfVdOebAC7n2nhtCfk9btCJT5J Jl14jh7AXmkqO0OYDIeYE7sIbuGCgRUxZINnT8K3Q8gwejts2mrAqxoosxTXOyAP7kdYA0v0fmDf KpSxs02PYfa7UXYAVxUg4oGmQNDOA8gOg9T04CyrB1+9GAaa9eLrGMPQwzBIwWGg6TBi1lKLlSJY AS9WEt/YwQpGSAlWsAl9qlHC9Ge20hpwyRTK3Gg5FKVKrHEREHoh+Md8SLWFyNsRm5CTcM0gPx5h BoKIUESaQR6tOHen/fzc53mHS9+J177FLcfkh5M0ghcPxISQYvQyFA/34prCD39IsVdZvLyO3TEU gQ0tze9ld7kRdPy+vroKRl/AC7hm8hFHEp7LHQIacIj74mGCi35mS00/F0buuEGO3+dlaAMN0bWO dG2qKtvlDFc3GGlz9g11fVnFqBPVqZpK5UcnTLXVyWoquULpGnv2U3pdYTCabHmnKp2M1vasC3j9 3rAz4KVjaJWLG8Ze//vve3whX8iFdwU+yO4JoN7r9wT/yfClDvr5OuBLghxtSgMYbujSbjIHYS5f VeZDSwIITEdsxwomsNrO/BpDr8QaMwsoCUCyL10k0Cr3HQslaNgIrngDrhLWzcZTsIGxfvCWaXOL l+dxOcslf4aBLRUDPOuPMTy2EGzXgfBSF3I4Z060bCE42JVdueNXOSBe9EUYcr6yf+N8+XVQCLbY FZXwd1UkAqHQ6Weyj3IOaKnlHFBDjaHhlcG67yKheG0vgZ7JtWs6RDjJ5ADngaeFEA5UggeC/jA4 wPIt0J4KsAxRoWk2PDsEumcI0i4E6jGSOcgvw3UZeNQySMA1SK9BmumfW5DegjTTNXcjnduf0wPi RgQDgh4pHNKFDRQCZzWAU4ZANwbQWQiQNWBlmN0SQivm1WwH9GRYCStWTwbYWbEGSGO12CrKQOfF aG3EWjKJJAcvZbsSHswhhbQS9AdVBZQYxmp1sVfsuAaIQ5x4dxxKIqQzuOhrnIbQDZaEqT2EsUom dZLsQEmg/ysdfX5IT847zrWYnEhS0HX0W8DXWzn0wrO19dZyoTHrY966YaMEy4iRZWXrKifCI7Sr LFQetyXLhYaKSbCJ9kRCFWnHFYxRQe7yv+wG7JX+pz/GZ9gXuXLfZcnhKZt77issl77B4sTMA4Bp CJC89IWVS99XyX1dhX1bpRlrOwK2xShyBb721ALv3FgyjlwJTnUV+O81sEKvBd+chP3SKfiC0zT4 5lr5wChWkfKUnNHT+GuuHTplRGzYLUtvu2nObfkaVFMtAiQdhSZKGxHg/aPTERYg3I3wEMJ2hOcR jiC8g3AGoQuhBwBRIdgR4giNCGMQpiMsQLgb4SGE7QjPIxxBeAfhDEIXQg+ApUKwI8QRGhHGIExH WIBwN8JDCNsRnkc4gvAOwhmELoQeRgMIdoQ4QiPCGITpCAsQ7kZ4CGE7wvMIRxDeQTiD0IXQAzRS Idh7838MXhfTFPh8ed47IM/wuX979sWZ/nn++Zh+/cUH1MMHf1n78gF5pgH274+Lkn79pQfUVwzI 8+OX/dozCd2/v5oBeaZZ9a+vG5CvH5Bn+nv/9k0D8owa+tcPG5BvHpDnamW/8Y4YUD9yQH7UgPwV A/KjB+THDMiPHZAfNyB/5YD8+AF5trPZf37MxuifnzAgP3FAftKA/MwB+VkD8rMH5NsG5BnX7//8 uQPyNwzIY5/rsvZMc+5//7wB+fkD8gsG5OELuuz+mwfkbxmQv3VAftGA/G0D8osH5JcMyDPNs//4 OY/uh093DKi/c0B+2YD8XSz/fwF5j7BgCmVuZHN0cmVhbQplbmRvYmoKMjYgMCBvYmoKMTU2NDkK ZW5kb2JqCjI3IDAgb2JqCihNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAtIFdFSVJEUyBOdW1iZXIgJiBOYW1lIENo YXJ0ZXIuZG9jeCkKZW5kb2JqCjI4IDAgb2JqCihNYWMgT1MgWCAxMC43LjMgUXVhcnR6IFBERkNv bnRleHQpCmVuZG9iagoyOSAwIG9iagooQmlsbCBTbWl0aCkKZW5kb2JqCjMwIDAgb2JqCihXb3Jk KQplbmRvYmoKMzEgMCBvYmoKKEQ6MjAxMjAyMDkxNTEyMDhaMDAnMDAnKQplbmRvYmoKMSAwIG9i ago8PCAvVGl0bGUgMjcgMCBSIC9BdXRob3IgMjkgMCBSIC9Qcm9kdWNlciAyOCAwIFIgL0NyZWF0 b3IgMzAgMCBSIC9DcmVhdGlvbkRhdGUKMzEgMCBSIC9Nb2REYXRlIDMxIDAgUiA+PgplbmRvYmoK eHJlZgowIDMyCjAwMDAwMDAwMDAgNjU1MzUgZiAKMDAwMDAzMzc5NSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDA0 MjM1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTY5NjIgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAwMDAyMiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAw MDA0MjE1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMDQzMzkgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAwNzE3MyAwMDAwMCBuIAow MDAwMDE3MTE2IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMDQ0MzggMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAwNzE1MiAwMDAwMCBu IAowMDAwMDExNTY4IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMDcyMDggMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxMTU0NyAwMDAw MCBuIAowMDAwMDExNjc1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTU3MzkgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxMTc3NSAw MDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDE1NzE4IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTU4NDYgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxNjc1 NSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDE1OTQ2IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTY3MzUgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAx Njg2MiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDE3MDY2IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTc1OTcgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAw MDAxNzgxOCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDMzNTU4IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMzM1ODAgMDAwMDAgbiAK MDAwMDAzMzY0OSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDMzNzAxIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMzM3MzAgMDAwMDAg biAKMDAwMDAzMzc1MyAwMDAwMCBuIAp0cmFpbGVyCjw8IC9TaXplIDMyIC9Sb290IDIzIDAgUiAv SW5mbyAxIDAgUiAvSUQgWyA8ZTAxODk4OGI2NzY1ZjcxMWUwOGY2ZjZhMTAzMzNkMDQ+CjxlMDE4 OTg4YjY3NjVmNzExZTA4ZjZmNmExMDMzM2QwND4gXSA+PgpzdGFydHhyZWYKMzM5MTUKJSVFT0YK --_003_9A5642945DD94D84BF9FD5CE60F66EEFpaypalcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; name="WEIRDS Number & Name Charter.txt" Content-Description: WEIRDS Number & Name Charter.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WEIRDS Number & Name Charter.txt"; size=6322; creation-date="Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:19:13 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:19:13 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 V29ydGh3aGlsZSBFeHRlbnNpYmxlIEludGVybmV0IFJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbiBEYXRhIFNlcnZpY2Ug KHdlaXJkcykNDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NDQoNDQpEUkFGVCBDaGFydGVyIHYgMjAxMi0wMi0wOWINDQoN DQpDaGFpcnM6DQ0KICAgIFRCRA0NCg0NCkludGVybmV0IEFyZWEgRGlyZWN0b3JzOg0NCiAgICBQ ZXRlIFJlc25pY2ssIFBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlLCBhbmQgQmFycnkgTGVpYmENDQoNDQpEZXNj cmlwdGlvbiBvZiBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwOg0NCg0NCiAgICBJbnRlcm5ldCByZWdpc3RyaWVzIGZv ciBib3RoIG51bWJlciByZXNvdXJjZXMgYW5kIG5hbWVzIGhhdmUNDQogICAgaGlzdG9yaWNhbGx5 IG1haW50YWluZWQgYSBsb29rdXAgc2VydmljZSB0byBwZXJtaXQgcHVibGljIGFjY2Vzcw0NCiAg ICB0byBzb21lIHBvcnRpb24gb2YgdGhlIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGRhdGFiYXNlLiAgTW9zdCByZWdpc3Ry aWVzIG9mZmVyDQ0KICAgIHRoZSBzZXJ2aWNlIHZpYSBXSE9JUyAoUkZDIDM5MTIpLCB3aXRoIGFk ZGl0aW9uYWwgc2VydmljZXMgYmVpbmcNDQogICAgb2ZmZXJlZCB2aWEgd29ybGQgd2lkZSB3ZWIg cGFnZXMsIGJ1bGsgZG93bmxvYWRzLCBhbmQgb3RoZXINDQogICAgc2VydmljZXMgbGlrZSBSUFNM IChSRkMgMjYyMikuDQ0KDQ0KICAgIA0NCiAgICBXSE9JUyBoYXMgbmV2ZXIgYmVlbiBpbnRlcm5h dGlvbmFsaXplZC4gIEluIHRoZSBhYnNlbmNlIG9mIGZvcm1hbA0NCiAgICBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9u LCBhZCBob2Mgc29sdXRpb25zIHRvIHNpZ25hbCBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsaXplZA0NCiAgICByZWdp c3RyYXRpb24gZGF0YSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gYWRvcHRlZCBhbmQgZGVwbG95ZWQuICBQcm92aWRpbmcg YQ0NCiAgICBzdGFuZGFyZHMtYmFzZSBzb2x1dGlvbiB0aGF0IHNjYWxlcyB3ZWxsIGNvdWxkIG1p bmltaXplIGZ1cnRoZXINDQogICAgcHJvbGlmZXJhdGlvbiBvZiBhZCBob2Mgc29sdXRpb25zLg0N Cg0NCiAgICBXSE9JUyBhbHNvIGhhcyBubyBkYXRhIG1vZGVsOiByZXBsaWVzIGFyZSBiYXNpY2Fs bHkgZnJlZS1mb3JtDQ0KICAgIHRleHQuICBUaGlzIG1lYW5zIHRoYXQgcHJvY2Vzc2luZyBvZiBX SE9JUyBvdXRwdXQgYW1vdW50cyB0bw0NCiAgICAic2NyZWVuLXNjcmFwaW5nIiwgd2l0aCBzcGVj aWFsaXplZCBoYW5kbGVycyBmb3IgZXZlcnkgc2VydmljZS4NDQogICAgV2hpbGUgbWFueSByZWdp c3RyaWVzIHNoYXJlIGEgYmFzaWMgb3V0cHV0DQ0KICAgIGZvcm1hdCwgdGhlIGFkZGl0aW9uIG9m IGRhdGEgZWxlbWVudHMgY2F1c2VzIHByb2JsZW1zIGZvciBwYXJzZXJzIA0KICAgIG9mIHRoZSBk YXRhLiBBIGZvcm1hbCBkYXRhIG1vZGVsIGNvdWxkIG1pdGlnYXRlIHRoZXNlIHByb2JsZW1zLiAg DQogICAgV2hpbGUgbmFtZSBhbmQgbnVtYmVyIHJlc291cmNlIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGRhdGFiYXNlcyBj b250YWluIG11Y2ggZGF0YQ0KICAgIGluIGNvbW1vbiwgZW5vdWdoIGRpZmZlcmVuY2VzIGV4aXN0 IHRvIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCBhIHNpbmdsZSBkYXRhIG1vZGVsDQogICAgaXMgaW5hcHByb3ByaWF0 ZSBmb3IgYSBzdGFuZGFyZGl6YXRpb24gZWZmb3J0Lg0NCiAgICANDQoNDQogICAgVmFyaW91cyBh dHRlbXB0cyB0byBzb2x2ZSB0aGUgbGltaXRhdGlvbnMgb2YgV0hPSVMgaGF2ZSBtZXQgd2l0aA0N CiAgICBtaXhlZCBzdWNjZXNzLiAgVGhlIG1vc3QgcmVjZW50IG9mIHRoZXNlIHdhcyBJUklTIChS RkMgMzg5MSkuDQ0KICAgIElSSVMgaGFzIG5vdCBiZWVuIGEgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCByZXBsYWNlbWVu dCBmb3IgV0hPSVMuICBTaWduaWZpY2FudA0NCiAgICByZWFzb25zIGZvciB0aGlzIGFwcGVhciB0 byBiZSB0aGUgY29tcGxleGl0eSBvZiBJUklTLCB0aGUgZmFjdA0NCiAgICB0aGF0IGl0IGhhcyBp dHMgb3duIGNvbnRyb2wgcGFydCwgYW5kIHRoYXQgaXQgcmVxdWlyZXMNDQogICAgaW1wbGVtZW50 ZXJzIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIGRldGFpbHMgb2YgdGhlIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBpdCBpcw0NCiAg ICB1c2luZy4NDQoNDQogICAgU29tZSByZWdpc3RyaWVzIGhhdmUgZGVwbG95ZWQgZXhwZXJpbWVu dGFsIHNlcnZpY2VzIHRoYXQgcHJvdmlkZQ0NCiAgICByZWdpc3RyYXRpb24gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g c2VydmljZXMgdHJhZGl0aW9uYWxseSBvZmZlcmVkIHZpYQ0NCiAgICBXSE9JUy4gIFRoZXNlIHVz ZSBhIFJFU1RmdWwgYXBwcm9hY2ggdG8gZGF0YSBkZWxpdmVyeSBvdmVyIHRoZQ0NCiAgICB3ZWIu ICBGb3VyIHN1Y2ggZWZmb3J0cyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gdW5kZXJ0YWtlbiwgYW5kIG1vcmUgYXJlDQ0K ICAgIGFudGljaXBhdGVkIGluIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIGRlcGxveW1lbnQgb2YgSUROQS4gIFRocmVl IG9mIHRoZQ0NCiAgICBlZmZvcnRzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBvbiB0aGUgcGFydCBvZiBudW1iZXIgcmVz b3VyY2UgcmVnaXN0cmllcyBhbmQgb25lDQogICAgb24gbmFtZXMuIEdpdmVuIHRoZSBhZGRpdGlv bmFsIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Ugd2l0aCBudW1iZXIgDQogICAgcmVzb3VyY2Ug cmVnaXN0cmllcywgc3RhcnRpbmcgd29yayB3aXRoIG51bWJlciByZXNvdXJjZSByZWdpc3RyaWVz IG1heQ0KICAgIHlpZWxkIHF1aWNrIHJlc3VsdHMuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGl0IGlzIGltcG9ydGFudCB0 aGF0IGFueSBzdWNoIHdvcmsgY29uc2lkZXINCiAgICBuYW1lIHJlc291cmNlcyBhbmQgbm90IG1h a2UgY2hvaWNlcyB0aGF0IHByZWNsdWRlIGEgdW5pZmllZCBhcHByb2FjaC4NDQoNDQogICAgVGhl IFdvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAgc2hhbGwgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHRoZSBnZW5lcmFsIG5lZWRzIG9mIHN1Y2gg YQ0NCiAgICBzZXJ2aWNlLCBhbmQgc3RhbmRhcmRpemUgYSBzaW5nbGUgZGF0YSBmcmFtZXdvcmsg Y2FwYWJsZSBvZiBzdXBwb3J0aW5nDQ0KICAgIG11bHRpcGxlIGRhdGEgbW9kZWxzIChlLmcuIG51 bWJlciBhbmQgbmFtZSkuICBUaGF0IGZyYW1ld29yaw0NCiAgICBzaGFsbCBiZSB1c2VkIHRvIGVu Y2Fwc3VsYXRlIG9iamVjdHMgdGhhdCBjb3VsZCBmb3JtIHBhcnQgb2YgYW4NDQogICAgYW5zd2Vy LiAgVGhlIGZyYW1ld29yayBzaGFsbCBiZSBmb3IgZGF0YSB0byBiZSBkZWxpdmVyZWQgdmlhIGEN DQogICAgUkVTVGZ1bCBkYXRhIHNlcnZpY2UgdXNpbmcgSFRUUCAob3B0aW9uYWxseSB1c2luZyBU TFMpLiAgVGhlDQ0KICAgIG92ZXJhbGwgZWZmb3J0IHdpbGwgYmUgYnJvYWRseSBhbGlnbmVkIHdp dGggdGhlIENyb3NzIFJlZ2lzdHJ5DQ0KICAgIEludGVybmV0IFNlcnZpY2UgUHJvdG9jb2wgKENS SVNQKSBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgKFJGQyAzNzA3KSwgYnV0DQ0KICAgIHdpdGggdGhlIGV4cGxpY2l0 IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgZ29hbCBvZiBwcm9kdWNpbmcgYSBzaW1wbGUsDQ0KICAgIGVhc3ktdG8taW1w bGVtZW50IHByb3RvY29sIHRoYXQgaXMgdG8gYmUgZGVwbG95ZWQgdmlhIFJFU1QuICBJbg0NCiAg ICBhZGRpdGlvbiwgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyB0aHJlZSBwcmlvcml0aWVzIHRha2UgcHJlY2VkZW5j ZSBvdmVyDQ0KICAgIG90aGVycyBmcm9tIFJGQyAzNzA3Og0NCg0NCiAgICAxLiAgQ29tcGxldGUg c3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbGl6YXRpb24gb2YgcXVlcmllcyBhbmQNDQogICAgcmVz cG9uc2VzLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYSBzdGFuZGFyZCByZXByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBmb3Igbm9uLUFTQ0lJ IHRleHQNDQogICAgaW4gcXVlcmllcyBhbmQgcmVzcG9uc2VzLCBhbmQgd2F5cyB0byBpbmRpY2F0 ZSBsYW5ndWFnZSBvcg0NCiAgICBjaGFyYWN0ZXIgc2V0IHByZWZlcmVuY2VzIGZvciByZXNwb25z ZXMuICBUaGUgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCB3aWxsDQ0KICAgIG5lZWQgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHdoZXRo ZXIgbGFuZ3VhZ2Ugb3IgY2hhcmFjdGVyIHNldCAob3IgYm90aCkgaXMNDQogICAgYW4gYXBwcm9w cmlhdGUgc2VsZWN0b3IuICBXaXRob3V0IHNpZ25pZmljYW50IHBhcnRpY2lwYXRpb24gZnJvbQ0N CiAgICBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsaXphdGlvbiBleHBlcnRzLCB0aGlzIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IHdpbGwg YmUgYWxsIGJ1dA0NCiAgICBpbXBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIG1lZXQuDQ0KDQ0KICAgIDIuICBSaWdvcm91 cyBtYWNoaW5lLWZyaWVuZGx5IGRhdGEgbW9kZWxzLCBib3RoIGZvciB0aGUgb3ZlcmFsbA0NCiAg ICBwcm90b2NvbCBhbmQgZm9yIGFueSBkYXRhIHByb2ZpbGVzIHRoZSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIGRl bGl2ZXJzLg0NCg0NCiAgICANDQogICAgMy4gIEEgZ3JhbW1hciBmb3IgcXVlcmllcywgc28gdGhh dCBhbGwgc2VydmVycyB0aGF0IHN1cHBvcnQgYQ0NCiAgICBnaXZlbiBraW5kIG9mIHF1ZXJ5IGFj Y2VwdCB0aGUgc2FtZSBzeW50YXggZm9yIHRoZSBxdWVyeS4NDQoNDQogICAgVGhlIHdvcmtpbmcg Z3JvdXAgc2hhbGwgYWxzbyBkZXZlbG9wIGEgZGF0YSBwcm9maWxlcyAob3Igb2JqZWN0DQ0KICAg IGZvcm1hdCkgdXNpbmcgdGhlIGFib3ZlIGZyYW1ld29yay4gIFRoZSBkYXRhIHByb2ZpbGVzIHNo YWxsIHByb3ZpZGUNDQogICAgdGhlIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBzdXBwb3J0IGZvciBvcGVyYXRpb24gb2Yg bnVtYmVyIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMgYW5kIG5hbWUNCiAgICByZWdpc3RyaWVzLg0NCg0NCiAgICAgICAg DQ0KDQ0KICAgICAgICANDQoNDQoNDQpNaWxlc3RvbmVzDQ0KDQ0KICAgIE5vdmVtYmVyIDIwMTIg RHJhZnQgV0VJUkRTIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyB0byBJRVNHIGZvcg0NCiAgICBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBh cyBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsIFJGQy4NDQoNDQogICAgTm92ZW1iZXIgMjAxMiBBbiBJbnRlcm5ldC1E cmFmdCBkZXNjcmliaW5nIHRoZSBkYXRhIGZyYW1ld29yaw0NCiAgICBUbyBiZSBlbXBsb3llZC4N DQoNDQogICAgRGVjZW1iZXIgMjAxMiBBbiBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCBsaXN0aW5nIHRoZSBzcGVj aWZpYyBkYXRhIG9iamVjdHMNDQogICAgcmVxdWlyZWQgYnkgbnVtYmVyIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMgICAg DQ0KICAgIHRoYXQgbWFrZSB1cCB0aGUgc2V0IG9mIHRoaW5ncyB0aGUgV0cgc2hhbGwgbWFwLCBw b3NzaWJseQ0NCiAgICBkZXNjcmliaW5nIGEgY29tbW9uIGZhY3RvciB0aGF0IGlzIGxhcmdlIGVu b3VnaCBmb3IgdGhlIG5lZWRzIG9mDQ0KICAgIHRoZSBXRydzIGluaXRpYWwgb2JqZWN0IHNwZWNp ZmljYXRpb24uICBUaGlzIEktRCBzaGFsbCBiZSBzdWJqZWN0DQ0KICAgIHRvIFdHIExDIGJ1dCBz aGFsbCBub3QgYWN0dWFsbHkgcHJvY2VlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVTRyB1bmxlc3MgdGhlDQ0KICAgIG9i amVjdCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIChiZWxvdykgc3Vic2VxdWVudGx5IGZhaWxzLCBpbiB3aGljaCBj YXNlDQ0KICAgIHRoaXMgc2hhbGwgYmUgc2VudCB0byB0aGUgSUVTRyBmb3IgcHVibGljYXRpb24g YXMgSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbA0NCiAgICBSRkMuICANDQoNDQogICAgQXByaWwgMjAxMyBEcmFmdCBX RUlSRFMgYmFzZSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIElFU0cgZm9yDQ0KICAgIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIG9u IHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZHMgdHJhY2suDQ0KDQ0KICAgIEFwcmlsIDIwMTMgQW4gSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJh ZnQgbGlzdGluZyB0aGUgc3BlY2lmaWMgZGF0YSBvYmplY3RzIHJlcXVpcmVkDQ0KICAgIEJ5IG5h bWUgcmVnaXN0cmllcy4NDQogICAgdGhhdCBtYWtlIHVwIHRoZSBzZXQgb2YgdGhpbmdzIHRoZSBX RyBzaGFsbCBtYXAsIHBvc3NpYmx5DQ0KICAgIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgYSBjb21tb24gZmFjdG9yIHRo YXQgaXMgbGFyZ2UgZW5vdWdoIGZvciB0aGUgbmVlZHMgb2YNDQogICAgdGhlIFdHJ3MgaW5pdGlh bCBvYmplY3Qgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbi4gIFRoaXMgSS1EIHNoYWxsIGJlIHN1YmplY3QNDQogICAg dG8gV0cgTEMgYnV0IHNoYWxsIG5vdCBhY3R1YWxseSBwcm9jZWVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHIHVubGVz cyB0aGUNDQogICAgb2JqZWN0IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gKGJlbG93KSBzdWJzZXF1ZW50bHkgZmFp bHMsIGluIHdoaWNoIGNhc2UNDQogICAgdGhpcyBzaGFsbCBiZSBzZW50IHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHIGZv ciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBhcyBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsDQ0KICAgIFJGQy4gIA0NCg0NCiAgICBKdWx5 IDIwMTMgRHJhZnQgV0VJUkRTIG9iamVjdCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgbnVtYmVyDQ0KICAg IHJlc291cmNlIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMgdG8gSUVTRyBmb3IgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb24gdGhlIHN0YW5k YXJkcw0NCiAgICB0cmFjay4NDQoNDQogICAgRGVjZW1iZXIgMjAxMyBEcmFmdCBXRUlSRFMgb2Jq ZWN0IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIG5hbWUNDQogICAgcmVzb3VyY2UgcmVnaXN0cmllcyB0byBJ RVNHIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgc3RhbmRhcmRzDQ0KICAgIHRyYWNrLg0NCg== --_003_9A5642945DD94D84BF9FD5CE60F66EEFpaypalcom_-- From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 9 07:39:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE69221E801A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:39:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.845, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CKBFQ2Vdzkwz for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:39:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EDF21E8014 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 88308 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 15:39:49 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2012 15:39:49 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 15:39:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20120209153927.36354.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120209144833.GB1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: pk@DENIC.DE Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:39:56 -0000 >> 4. A grammar for queries, so that all servers that support a >> given kind of query accept the same syntax for the query. > >... i'm not sure i understand why this is spelled out explicitly. Whois > has seen lots of proprietary extensions, but isn't (4) already > covered by (2)? That's my clause. I read #2 as describing the data model of the underlying server and the response, and likely the kinds of questions you can ask, but not the concrete grammar. My goal is simple: if I can ask a question at all, I ask it in exactly the same way to everyone who can understand it. The sort of thing I want to avoid is the current situation where, if I ask an RIR about an IP address, some of them tell me about the smallest surrounding allocation, some of them tell me about all of the enclosing allocations, and one of them tells me what questions I could ask to find out about each of the enclosing allocations. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 9 07:47:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084A321F8603 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:47:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.722, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aXUXz0UG9n9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:47:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E66C21F8602 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 337 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 15:47:29 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2012 15:47:29 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 15:47:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <9A564294-5DD9-4D84-BF9F-D5CE60F66EEF@paypal.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:47:37 -0000 >As requested, see attached. If I may ask a pointed question, how much of the extra name-related work are you offering to do, and which name registries do you expect to do prototypes to test the design? For the bazillionth time, everyone knows that it would be nice to have something better than the current WHOIS mess, but nobody's offered any reason to believe that this would be any different from the last three failed attempts. R's, John From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Thu Feb 9 08:30:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F17C21F872B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:30:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2rxVIpRQuJll for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E708321F8729 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:30:50 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=P+qvptCeWrZs87vmY3Q2aG2d2mzNLQrEMgJAMcqb8jrAS4LVDGfXR2od aG1UgE6AaCP30pqYNyInYkkWmHNjc1p9uoCKyYkTT5KJPU1XP6awORJPx f2p/XrQymH/XP9x; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1328805051; x=1360341051; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=8Qag9tELoGa7e9yWyLxJTzQTHUO0qILE4GBT+aZh3Qc=; b=Jwm+Gv/Zx3NApflzPuem0rIbZm+M5/uj/NOG+T0nNwT8Nnw2Gr+RjoeA rENdR8M1um3wtHLKzmIL9Fio/hvvccIgdoxzSmAMBkB9MKJjkPpvxpdxr hpsgeWR1at5bjEI; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,391,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="5508527" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-004.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2012 08:30:50 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-004.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::a487:c570:9abc:bb59%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:30:49 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: John Levine Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CAgAAHzQCAAAw1gA== Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:30:48 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.36] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: WPYgDKgBqVz053dtxsmZfg== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2E0EC3E3E2BFDC47800EB2F0784747AB@corp.ebay.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:30:51 -0000 On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:47 AM, John Levine wrote: > If I may ask a pointed question, how much of the extra name-related > work are you offering to do, and which name registries do you expect > to do prototypes to test the design? Without any attempt to coerce or speak for anyone else, I expect we could s= ee implementations from Neustar, PIR, Afilias, and ICANN. All have spoken u= p on the list in favor of a combined approach. >=20 > For the bazillionth time, everyone knows that it would be nice to have > something better than the current WHOIS mess, but nobody's offered > any reason to believe that this would be any different from the last > three failed attempts. >=20 Respectfully, Internet history is full of "failed attempts"; thankfully. Wh= en something fails, yet a need exists, people step in and try again. I've l= isted four list "name" participants that I believe are likely to participat= e in prototype development. That number exceeds the current number of "numb= er" prototypes and is a strong argument that development interest exists. A= dditionally, as a consumer of WHOIS and potential consumer of WEIRDS, PayPa= l has a strong interest in names.=20 Will this effort be any different then prior "failed attempts"? If we, this= WG, don't make the effort, the answer is guaranteed. If we make the effor= t, the Internet community will decide. I'm for the letting the community ma= ke the decision. From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Thu Feb 9 08:39:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C740E21F8522 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:39:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nQIWFwgjbnX7 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419E621F8517 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:39:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from Gavins-iMac.local (fs-3.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net [82.68.174.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F568712C2B; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F33F6B1.1050900@centralnic.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:39:13 +0000 From: Gavin Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Smith, Bill" References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:39:23 -0000 > On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:47 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> If I may ask a pointed question, how much of the extra name-related >> work are you offering to do, and which name registries do you expect >> to do prototypes to test the design? > > Without any attempt to coerce or speak for anyone else, I expect we could see implementations from Neustar, PIR, Afilias, and ICANN. All have spoken up on the list in favor of a combined approach. CentralNic will certainly develop a prototype implementation. I am certain that many of my colleagues at other registries will also do so. Unfortunately the timing is inconvenient (we all have our heads down working on new gTLDs) so many of us don't have the time needed to monitor the discussion, but after April 12, I think you'll see a lot more interest from the naming side. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. From peter@denic.de Thu Feb 9 08:50:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E0021F86F9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:50:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JyHtkZqfQGGT for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:50:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18AC21F8726 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RvXCq-00071q-3m; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:50:48 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RvXCq-0007Lg-0D; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:50:48 +0100 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:50:47 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120209165047.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120209144833.GB1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120209153927.36354.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120209153927.36354.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:50:50 -0000 On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:39:27PM +0000, John Levine wrote: > That's my clause. I read #2 as describing the data model of the underlying > server and the response, and likely the kinds of questions you can ask, but > not the concrete grammar. My goal is simple: if I can ask a question at all, > I ask it in exactly the same way to everyone who can understand it. yes, but isn't that one of the basic reasons to start this effort? > The sort of thing I want to avoid is the current situation where, if I > ask an RIR about an IP address, some of them tell me about the > smallest surrounding allocation, some of them tell me about all of the > enclosing allocations, and one of them tells me what questions I could > ask to find out about each of the enclosing allocations. While that touches upon the semantics of the query and thus the shape of the response a bit more than the syntax and while i also agree that this sounds straightforward and useful, even under WEIRDS some servers might, for policy reasons, give more or different responses than others. In any case, #4 could be merged into #2 at least, given that it addresses the same or a similar issue: a query syntax and defined semantics ("for the overall protocol"). -Peter From dave.piscitello@icann.org Thu Feb 9 08:56:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5411621E8014 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:56:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QZm372Bg6FHB for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674BB21F860B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:56:34 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: John Levine Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:56:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AcznS8dNB0zIwmpUSaOOsMc3vEyuaA== Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:56:36 -0000 John, No one interested in the name registry world can deny that the path to a su= ccessful supplanting of the current protocol is short or guaranteed, and we= are all familiar with the failed attempts. There are folks who probably wo= n't concede defeat and while we can accept the skepticism, throwing us occa= sional support would be welcome. To offer you reasons to do so, I'd point you to the external WHOIS review t= eam report and recommendations, page 92: "=95 ICANN Community should task a working group within 6 months of publica= tion to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model, and (iii) = internationalized services, to give global access to gather, store and make= available internationalized registration data. Such working group should r= eport no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN encoding. T= he working group should aim for consistency of approach across the gTLD and= =96 on a voluntary basis =96 the ccTLD space." Part of this recommendation is currently being considered by ICANN's SSAC, = where we have ongoing work enacting from our publication SAC051, www.icann.= org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf which recommends that: "=95 Recommendation 2: The ICANN community should evaluate and adopt a repl= acement domain name registration data access protocol that supports the que= ry and display of Internationalized DNRD as well as addressing the relevant= recommendations in SAC 003, SAC 027 and SAC 033. Recommendation 3: The ICANN community should develop a uniform and standard= framework for accessing DNRD that would provide mechanisms to define and i= mplement a range of verification methods, credential services, and access c= ontrol capabilities." Specifically, SSAC is studying a data profile. We have been considering the= EPP data, escrow data, data registrars are obliged to collect as per the r= egistrar accreditation agreement. While entirely speculative on my part, I = can easily envision having a data profile available for IETF consideration = in the next 6-9 months, especially if WEIRDS and SSAC can work cooperativel= y and in parallel. If there are other specific activities that we need to proffer to earn more= positive consideration, please ask. We all know the name resource community is larger and different from the RI= R and we know that there is nothing agile about its process. It's also true= that early negatives are very hard to overcome. I'm not asking for a leap = of faith but I think we'd have more success if WEIRDs could be more support= ive. On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:47 AM, John Levine wrote: >> As requested, see attached. >=20 > If I may ask a pointed question, how much of the extra name-related > work are you offering to do, and which name registries do you expect > to do prototypes to test the design? >=20 > For the bazillionth time, everyone knows that it would be nice to have > something better than the current WHOIS mess, but nobody's offered > any reason to believe that this would be any different from the last > three failed attempts. >=20 > R's, > John >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 9 09:01:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76D221E802C for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTSBiUSuTZky for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F4D21E802A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q19H1DU1000432; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:01:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328806877; i=@resistor.net; bh=jt0DYKrXDY4kAi8r/D/TajwMM+/1oHFknTeRJ5zaVDs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=3umGuJzkbfwroBZ/sR1TTA1dkgxXqDQUS4jh0kO5Js7U6LaVNrJXllo+S/y6/KkDt MAjpTpSpKkCL1Abd1Aj4HhE3X2HYgR4DQ+ZNknk7kJ7ONlSlKjYXKoX/o94B0OVn1h 0Vu19MdEvGIP4BzC8aauPlQYNZyuOB/0BZtCY9tc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1328806877; i=@resistor.net; bh=jt0DYKrXDY4kAi8r/D/TajwMM+/1oHFknTeRJ5zaVDs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=fqyZAn9Fd93aUb+Rhw6R0tqBCvwZXDCayyfJBGGSrdGhc7lklYfYqNLR6KdPk22Da 5MJS6yz1q7P77ec248wjOtEihyse6Ruhp3wMLp20E9lETh+jVdomIPnQ/lTwoDvudH HofiLWhIBqLdlCtTkl3aUcjg/m1nLZja6jCn9hhg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209083952.0758d8e8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:00:53 -0800 To: "Smith, Bill" From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:01:19 -0000 Hi Bill, At 08:30 AM 2/9/2012, Smith, Bill wrote: >Respectfully, Internet history is full of "failed attempts"; >thankfully. When something fails, yet a need exists, people step in >and try again. I've listed four list "name" participants that I >believe are likely to participate in prototype development. That >number exceeds the current number of "number" prototypes and is a >strong argument that development interest exists. Additionally, as a >consumer of WHOIS and potential consumer of WEIRDS, PayPal has a >strong interest in names. There are five number resource registries. All of them have expressed interest in the work. I don't think that comparing the numbers from numbers and names provides an accurate picture. There is strong interest on the consumer side in the data from name registries. We could call it a need. The lack of fulfillment of that need could be explained by the data production side not having the same interests as those with the need. > Will this effort be any different then prior "failed attempts"? If > we, this WG, don't make the effort, the answer is guaranteed. If > we make the effort, the Internet community will decide. I'm for the > letting the community make the decision. I am not disagreeing with you. The current scope is more about work that can be done easily. By putting name and numbers together, the attempt comes out as solving the "whois" problem. It takes more than an IETF working group to solve such a problem. If the problem is tackled in two steps, it is easier to focus the work if there are distractions. Regards, -sm From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 9 09:06:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB3621E8036 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:06:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.614, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuEcIdJT9E2W for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:06:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C8F21E8035 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 34432 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 17:06:35 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2012 17:06:35 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2012 17:06:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20120209170613.39198.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120209165047.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: pk@DENIC.DE Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:06:38 -0000 >In any case, #4 could be merged into #2 at least, given that it addresses >the same or a similar issue: a query syntax and defined semantics >("for the overall protocol"). I don't feel all that strongly, but I don't see any harm in leaving it explicit. R's, John From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 9 09:19:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8414C21F8729 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:19:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.606 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tf3ufiPwXNEk for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:19:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F9F21F871B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12EE61ECB41D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:19:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:19:53 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120209171953.GH15698@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F33F6B1.1050900@centralnic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F33F6B1.1050900@centralnic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:19:58 -0000 On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:39:13PM +0000, Gavin Brown wrote: > Unfortunately the timing is inconvenient (we all have our heads down > working on new gTLDs) so many of us don't have the time needed to > monitor the discussion, but after April 12, I think you'll see a lot > more interest from the naming side. Look, I want the names stuff as much as anybody. But the above is actually just another argument in favour of the current proposed text, which is designed precisely to make it easy to add names to the milestones when there is evidence of people having time and energy for that problem. I don't get why that's not the right way to approach things. The bitter irony, to me, is that in ICANN circles one hears this argument _all the time_: "I shouldn't have to wait to implement the thing I'm ready to do just because someone else isn't ready." (Indeed, the ALAC made exactly this argument recently on a different topic.) Why is this case any different? Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 9 09:26:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632BA21F8740 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:26:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h-LFJnyHkMqf for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:26:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC7521F873E for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:26:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:26:02 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:26:02 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:26:01 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCM/curj+5UG0a9RBxVYQthwpY07LuA///keTA= Message-ID: References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:26:03 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andy Newton > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:04 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk > > access, according to different classes of user. >=20 > When did bulk whois come into scope? I think it's always been in scope (at least, I hope whatever we produce wil= l enable it), but I would also agree that it doesn't need to be explicit in= the charter. -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 9 09:34:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F4F21F8767 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:34:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kuuXziH04tyW for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76F121F8764 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:34:25 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:34:25 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:34:23 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AcznTHNhDxNJqIjSQJem6Fix6F/tywABAFNw Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20120209083952.0758d8e8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209083952.0758d8e8@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:34:26 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:01 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > There are five number resource registries. All of them have expressed > interest in the work. I don't think that comparing the numbers from > numbers and names provides an accurate picture. I have to agree. In terms of "guaranteed" implementation percentages, we a= ppear to have almost complete coverage in number space, but for names the a= ctual count is encouraging but the percentage is substantially smaller. But it is also worth considering the size of some of the names. If we thin= k about it in terms of what percentage of overall name queries would be ans= wered by the volunteers that have stepped forward here from the name regist= ry space, it's a lot more encouraging. And in any case, I want both sets of work to go forward. If getting there = via tackling the numbers problem first is the path the IETF will let it hap= pen, then fine... let's get started. > There is strong interest on the consumer side in the data from name > registries. We could call it a need. The lack of fulfillment of that > need could be explained by the data production side not having the same > interests as those with the need. +1. -MSK From michael@mwyoung.ca Thu Feb 9 09:50:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE6A21E8021 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:50:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.510, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97Z6hLY4UiVq for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8360521E8014 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so3424009iag.31 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.216.201 with SMTP id os9mr5079776igc.22.1328809812177; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ch2sm5069785igb.4.2012.02.09.09.50.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:50:10 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" , References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20120209083952.0758d8e8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:50:05 -0500 Message-ID: <017401cce753$428228f0$c7867ad0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJgcTWofMYL0Dqf21Z6fu5Sv3BmtQGB9hkWAiUoFUACLDN65pTfJ1gw Content-Language: en-ca X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkV1e4SHjQgNV8vwkHGETAFuFvOwJyvDLpXxNR0ez5HzuxuPpaZCuEMJ9FxGXA6PYy7DV+ Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:50:13 -0000 It's probably important to note that if a truly useable protocol (I make this distinction due IRIS) comes out of this work for name registries, ICANN will likely add required compliance to those RFCs to its next iteration of registry operator agreements (contracts). While that is a speculative claim, I think there's enough history to indicate its quite likely. Dave P. may want to comment on that,......... I prefer Bill's version of the charter, but I see Andrew's points on participation and believe they are well founded in fact. Given that, I think getting the work rolling is the priority. BTW I will do an independent name registry implementation as well. Michael Young -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: February-09-12 12:34 PM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of SM > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:01 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text > > There are five number resource registries. All of them have expressed > interest in the work. I don't think that comparing the numbers from > numbers and names provides an accurate picture. I have to agree. In terms of "guaranteed" implementation percentages, we appear to have almost complete coverage in number space, but for names the actual count is encouraging but the percentage is substantially smaller. But it is also worth considering the size of some of the names. If we think about it in terms of what percentage of overall name queries would be answered by the volunteers that have stepped forward here from the name registry space, it's a lot more encouraging. And in any case, I want both sets of work to go forward. If getting there via tackling the numbers problem first is the path the IETF will let it happen, then fine... let's get started. > There is strong interest on the consumer side in the data from name > registries. We could call it a need. The lack of fulfillment of that > need could be explained by the data production side not having the > same interests as those with the need. +1. -MSK _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From dave.piscitello@icann.org Thu Feb 9 10:08:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F9A21F86AB for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:08:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MR9PO3+m2GPg for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E928521F862F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:08:28 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: John Levine Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:08:27 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AcznVdM2094HDhuhRh68o8AHKKH8zQ== Message-ID: <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:08:34 -0000 In the interest of finding a way forward, and trying to consider as much of= what's been discussed in several threads (to my best ability), please cons= ider these changes to most recent draft. My objective here is to=20 (i) acknowledge that number registry data profile work takes precedence ove= r name because=20 RIRs merit this consideration for the work they have contributed (ii) reflect that a single data framework is desired and that name resource= stakeholder=20 interests ought to be taken into consideration during the definition of the= "standard single data framework". (iii) reflect name resource interest but also put the burden of developing = the data profile for name resources. To this effect, I've added a milestone that I b= elieve the ICANN community can achieve given that the SSAC is already engaged in=20 studying and providing a prototype domain lifecycle registration data model for consideration of the ICANN community. Thanks for your time and consideration, 1) TO=20 "An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries." ADD "Number resource registries are also fewer in number than name registries. = This may influence the time to achieve consensus on name registry database = considerations." 2) CHANGE "Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions." TO "Providing a standards-base solution (common convention) for internationali= zation for number and name registries that scales well could minimize furt= her proliferation of ad hoc solutions." 3) TO "WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text." ADD "Response (and error) composition is left to the discretion of the service = provider."=20 4) CHANGE "The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. " TO "The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with framework and protocol considerations that are common to=20 both number and name resource registries (so that, to the extent possible, commonality is achieved) and attending quickly thereafter to number specific considerations may yield quick results. Experimentation by (or on behalf of) name registries will dictate how quickly name specific considerations are incorporated into the WG's program of work." 5) CHANGE "The Working Group will need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is an appropriate selector. " TO "The Working Group will need to determine what selector or selectors ( e.g., character set, lang= uage-script, language-country) are necessary." 6) CHANGE "2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers." TO " 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any number or name resource data profiles the Working G= roup delivers." 7) CHANGE " 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk access, according to different classes of user." TO " 3. Support for differential service levels according to different classe= s of user." 8) CHANGE "The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries." TO "The working group shall initially develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The initial data profile shall provi= de the necessary support for operation of number registries. A separate data profile shall be developed by (or on behalf of) name registries in = parallel with or subsequent to the number resource profile.=20 9) DELETE "The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. " 10) CHANGE "The initial 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 needs peculiar to 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. " TO "The initial work list for the working group shall not preclude work on name registry support. 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." 11) CHANGE "Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work." TO "Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted and encouraged= ." 12) DELETE "It is expected that the Working Group would change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry support." 13) ADD September 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track.= From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 9 15:20:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6E621F85B8 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:20:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uqKNyGaa+4WG for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF2521F85DD for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q19NJx2U010485; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:20:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328829604; i=@resistor.net; bh=UbAb7IEMIXh58/LGOWei9qyTjgwQjnGFP15CTUdelaM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=POROaqY6G3a/PDkKn2QoZXC+vm+hleHEO65DV9sS+zDPiZ4QPKrNZz6Fsgvj1ATWV Cq/2z64ZpQx3GVWhaBBI+pBi6ru/9KHl8al3K1HIYvscbAAt9yPgbVAY7+4Cp39V75 BKb6sqh6pI6LDdzxM6hxJyYt71o3Wg3c6kY5J97A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1328829604; i=@resistor.net; bh=UbAb7IEMIXh58/LGOWei9qyTjgwQjnGFP15CTUdelaM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=XSQZXPRe2nwvhZ3IQMm5eqf6vwZpE01aFwTIyfOo+n7wFqNrrOZhA5/yOquQCrxwS Cju8eKzjOVaccEw4qoyIbXh2qR4bCRJjxiL9pmyILJqPuvrtbfO1WtBRT8bNdOe/Cl GbPT5QVMZpLeK8FLzZFO3vQaaq2nnPTTefAcdKrY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209103340.08a721f0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:18:55 -0800 To: Dave Piscitello From: SM In-Reply-To: <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:20:28 -0000 Hi Dave, At 10:08 AM 2/9/2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >1) TO > >"An important difference is > that number resource registries do not have the sort of > competitive retail market that is common to many domain name > registries." > >ADD > >"Number resource registries are also fewer in number than name >registries. This may influence the time to achieve consensus on name >registry database considerations." I don't see what this has to do with the work. We could look at this differently, i.e. by adding name registries, it will take longer for a future working group to achieve consensus. This would be a disingenuous argument if we look at it from an IETF perspective. >13) ADD > >September 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name > resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards > track. Why is it important that a future working group takes on this work item in the initial charter? Regards, -sm From dave.piscitello@icann.org Thu Feb 9 16:16:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAAA11E807F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:16:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a9N287BQJNEX for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:16:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7485C11E8079 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:16:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:16:51 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: SM Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:16:50 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczniUleruZeu9ExR+uJDDy6DENDKw== Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120209103340.08a721f0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209103340.08a721f0@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:16:53 -0000 Hi:-) On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:18 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Dave, > At 10:08 AM 2/9/2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >> 1) TO >>=20 >> "An important difference is >> that number resource registries do not have the sort of >> competitive retail market that is common to many domain name >> registries." >>=20 >> ADD >>=20 >> "Number resource registries are also fewer in number than name=20 >> registries. This may influence the time to achieve consensus on name=20 >> registry database considerations." >=20 > I don't see what this has to do with the work. We could look at this=20 > differently, i.e. by adding name registries, it will take longer for=20 > a future working group to achieve consensus. This would be a=20 > disingenuous argument if we look at it from an IETF perspective. I was uncertain about adding this, but the original sentence stood out as c= haracterizing number resource registries from name resource registries in a= particular way, and I perhaps mistook this to be intended to justify first= working on number resources. I added another distinguishing characteristic= . I wouldn't' feel strongly against deleting both sentences. I really don't think in terms of an "IETF perspective". The only perspectiv= e thats relevant to me 's whether is that the work benefits the Internet co= mmunity and IMO having a single common successor to Whois for name and numb= er resources is beneficial in a number of ways. >=20 >> 13) ADD >>=20 >> September 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name >> resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards >> track. >=20 > Why is it important that a future working group takes on this work=20 > item in the initial charter? My understanding is that the WG would work on a single common protocol and = that data profiles for name and number resources would be developed, thus t= hree deliverables.=20 From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 9 18:29:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209E921E8062 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y3vUzznfdjas for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E24121E803B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1A2SgTj008284; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:28:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328840925; i=@resistor.net; bh=5G6xqrJRToYn2MzmAvjNmEb8Ha75q8OlFgvQaoE1rlo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=yw2LCNxaDEEzza7wneNnH37ZlHfUaBvSeninbt0xHB/MYJp/vHFpV1D8RbuhBl+g3 2eLdNs/9pwIN4f4M4cHcN+GshfU7APS2lwkTAqRYZZ+ytD2ZkR9C5cpxkheIpO0SqN BDvNcZAw3esq585wNt+1XHRu7RyR6KeVXBgHf8TY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1328840925; i=@resistor.net; bh=5G6xqrJRToYn2MzmAvjNmEb8Ha75q8OlFgvQaoE1rlo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=IblQyveZemgr+pMkCcuN2d1Zx3M4ZIjurglQ405y35VGG2BHRxKJ9u1t5onkuNlgi 5T5b9UGHbmXY4sHg3k4m+hL0Mb7E711obE2mZaO0+yXdu2UQvU1RjrazkRAS+0b6Fn V7wsUcg2+ba9nzTeDYaC9RF1gbJSPz48qeY1gQAs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209164340.07ed7fc0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:28:12 -0800 To: Dave Piscitello From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120209103340.08a721f0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:29:09 -0000 Hi Dave, At 04:16 PM 2/9/2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >I was uncertain about adding this, but the original sentence stood >out as characterizing number resource registries from name resource >registries in a particular way, and I perhaps mistook this to be >intended to justify first working on number resources. I added >another distinguishing characteristic. I wouldn't' feel strongly >against deleting both sentences. I read the wierds-charter-20120209a text again. As a note to Andrew Sullivan, the three ADs mentioned are from the Applications Area and not Internet Area Directors. I suggest striking out the following paragraph: "While name and number resource registry databases contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries." That avoids any characterization. And making this minor change: Some number resource registries have deployed experimental services that provide registration information services using a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. I don't think it is important to stress the differences between the two types of registries. Basically, the above says that the work on number resource registries can be completed somewhat quickly. There is some text in the last paragraph to support name registries if it does not affect the initial work. >I really don't think in terms of an "IETF perspective". The only >perspective thats relevant to me 's whether is that the work >benefits the Internet community and IMO having a single common >successor to Whois for name and number resources is beneficial in a >number of ways. A charter is sometimes written from an "IETF perspective" to get the work done. The perspective mentioned above is laudable but it lacks the inducements for a working group to be productive. >My understanding is that the WG would work on a single common >protocol and that data profiles for name and number resources would >be developed, thus three deliverables. With the RESTful approach you end up with a protocol which can be used for name and number resources. There are some number resource registry specifics which could go in as extensions. There are actually three deliverables at the moment. With the change you suggested, that takes it to four. Depending on what goes in the requirements document, additional deliverables might be needed. Regards, -sm From aservin@lacnic.net Thu Feb 9 18:42:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF0021F851B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:42:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbnGCiiwFfXj for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B999421F8517 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:42:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (r186-48-200-207.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.200.207]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BEA730843E; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:42:46 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:42:45 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> To: Dave Piscitello , Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:42:52 -0000 Although I would prefer to only include number registries work = compatible with name registries in the initial charter, in order to = reach agreement I am not ok if we include name registries work in the = initial charter. I am happy with the last charter version sent by Andy but I = concede that some of Dave's changes would make the charter to have more = possibilities to reach consensus and to break the deadlock in which I = think we are. I have some comments and I do not fully agree with all the = suggestions. My comments are trying to address my concern that name registry = work could slow the work on numbers (which it is a concern but not a big = one), but more important my concern that the IESG may think that we are = very ambitious and destined to fail (altogether with the work that we = have already done in number registries). On 9 Feb 2012, at 16:08, Dave Piscitello wrote: > In the interest of finding a way forward, and trying to consider as = much of what's been discussed in several threads (to my best ability), = please consider these changes to most recent draft. My objective here is = to=20 >=20 > (i) acknowledge that number registry data profile work takes = precedence over name because=20 > RIRs merit this consideration for the work they have contributed >=20 > (ii) reflect that a single data framework is desired and that name = resource stakeholder=20 > interests ought to be taken into consideration during the definition = of the "standard > single data framework". >=20 > (iii) reflect name resource interest but also put the burden of = developing the data > profile for name resources. To this effect, I've added a milestone = that I believe the > ICANN community can achieve given that the SSAC is already engaged in=20= > studying and providing a prototype domain lifecycle registration data = model > for consideration of the ICANN community. >=20 > Thanks for your time and consideration, >=20 >=20 > 1) TO=20 >=20 > "An important difference is > that number resource registries do not have the sort of > competitive retail market that is common to many domain name > registries." >=20 > ADD >=20 > "Number resource registries are also fewer in number than name = registries. This may influence the time to achieve consensus on name = registry database considerations." agree >=20 > 2) CHANGE >=20 > "Providing a > standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further > proliferation of ad hoc solutions." >=20 > TO >=20 > "Providing a standards-base solution (common convention) for = internationalization for number and name registries that scales well = could minimize further > proliferation of ad hoc solutions." Agree >=20 > 3) TO >=20 > "WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form > text." >=20 > ADD >=20 > "Response (and error) composition is left to the discretion of the = service provider."=20 Agree >=20 > 4) CHANGE >=20 > "The > existing experience with number resource registries, and their > differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with > number resource registries may yield quick results. " >=20 > TO >=20 > "The > existing experience with number resource registries, and their > differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with > framework and protocol considerations that are common to=20 > both number and name resource registries (so that, to the extent > possible, commonality is achieved) and attending quickly thereafter > to number specific considerations may yield quick results. > Experimentation by (or on behalf of) name registries will dictate > how quickly name specific considerations are incorporated into > the WG's program of work." Not very convinced. "The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with framework and protocol considerations that are common to=20 both number and name resource registries but based in the practical = experience of the former may yield quick results. Experimentation by (or on behalf of) name registries will dictate how quickly name specific considerations are incorporated into the WG's program of work." Or just leave the original paragraph with the addition regarding the = experimentation on name-registries >=20 > 5) CHANGE >=20 > "The Working Group will > need to determine whether language or character set (or both) is > an appropriate selector. " >=20 > TO >=20 > "The Working Group will > need to determine what selector or selectors ( e.g., character set, = language-script, language-country) > are necessary." either option is ok to me. >=20 > 6) CHANGE >=20 > "2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall > protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers." >=20 > TO >=20 > " 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall > protocol and for any number or name resource data profiles the = Working Group delivers." Honestly I like the original one more, I do not see the need to add = number and name. >=20 > 7) CHANGE >=20 > " 3. Support for differential service levels, including bulk > access, according to different classes of user." >=20 > TO >=20 > " 3. Support for differential service levels according to different = classes of user." Agree >=20 >=20 > 8) CHANGE >=20 > "The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object > format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide > the necessary support for operation of number registries." >=20 > TO >=20 > "The working group shall initially develop a data profile (or object > format) using the above framework. The initial data profile shall = provide > the necessary support for operation of number registries. A separate > data profile shall be developed by (or on behalf of) name registries = in parallel > with or subsequent to the number resource profile.=20 I do not know if we need to enforce a second data profile for name = registries now. I would be happier with a "may". "=85 number registries. If required, a separate data profile may be developed by (or on behalf of) name registries in = parallel with or subsequent to the number resource profile. " >=20 > 9) DELETE >=20 > "The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or > object format) to provide the support for name registries to use > the protocol. " Well, I think 8 takes care of this for me. >=20 > 10) CHANGE >=20 > "The initial 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 needs peculiar > to 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. " >=20 > TO >=20 > "The initial work list for the working group shall > not preclude work on name registry support. 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 prefer the original one under the assumption that there will be = specific needs for name registries that may add complexity to number = registries implementations. But I think that including name registries = work explicitly is important for reach consensus: In either case I would propose: "The initial work list for the working group shall not preclude work on name registry support. 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. However development of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar to name registries. " >=20 > 11) CHANGE >=20 > "Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, > relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but > actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the > beginning of work." >=20 > TO >=20 > "Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, > relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted and = encouraged." I would remove both. I think that we changes already proposed above is = not need to explicitly permit or forbid work. >=20 > 12) DELETE >=20 > "It is expected that the Working Group would > change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group > were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry > support." >=20 > 13) ADD >=20 > September 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name > resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards > track. I think it is ambitious and I would prefer to add it after some = prototyping by some name registries but I am ok if it is really = important for name registry people. Regards, /as > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 9 20:50:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC28021E8015 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:50:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GgD8CSVs258l for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:50:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1208311E8075 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 77900 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2012 04:49:54 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2012 04:49:54 -0000 Date: 10 Feb 2012 04:49:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20120210044932.28136.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120209062552.092c93a8@resistor.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:50:11 -0000 >>When did bulk whois come into scope? > >The "including bulk access" could be dropped from the proposed >charter as it is unrelated to the protocol a future working group >might work on. I'd like to keep it in mind even if it's not a deliverable. It might well turn out that the schema for bulk access is that same as or close to the schema for individual queries. For that matter, since web servers are quite capable of delivering large gzipped responses, I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of making bulk access a kind of query that returns a big compressed JSON or XML answer. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 9 20:52:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D33D21F847B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:52:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.764 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.764 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEK0HD5Xiay3 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7287C11E80B1 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 80483 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2012 04:52:18 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2012 04:52:18 -0000 Date: 10 Feb 2012 04:51:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20120210045156.28230.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:52:23 -0000 >And in any case, I want both sets of work to go forward. If getting >there via tackling the numbers problem first is the path the IETF will >let it happen, then fine... let's get started. It might also be useful to have a show of virtual hands for who expects to do what work in what timeframe. I'm happy to work on the number spec now, and the name spec after the number stuff has been shaken out. I would be extremely eager to do client implementations of number lookups so abuse.net can start providing useful answers for questions about IP addresses. R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 9 20:57:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E2B21E8010 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUCKsSmEgxU0 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C6321F8609 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:57:13 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:57:13 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:57:22 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AcznnbFLLcfOb8anRQCbx8TlxWSCYAAEfzlQ Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> In-Reply-To: <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:57:14 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Arturo Servin > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:43 PM > To: Dave Piscitello; Andrew Sullivan > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > Although I would prefer to only include number registries work > compatible with name registries in the initial charter, in order to > reach agreement I am not ok if we include name registries work in the > initial charter. Given what happened in Taipei, I have to agree that the names-after-numbers= approach is the right path for us. I don't understand what the objection is here. What is this insistence tha= t names absolutely have to be done in the first charter? Since we have num= ber registry prototypes already, it should be relatively short work to docu= ment them, and then we can move on to the more challenging topic of names. = Even if names were in the charter, it seems like that's the course we woul= d follow anyway. It also seems to me by making the first charter a smashing success, we'll h= ave the support and momentum to tackle the second one. -MSK From dave.piscitello@icann.org Thu Feb 9 21:36:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E19121F85A4 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:36:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.722 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.877, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_FOLLOW1=1.332, FRT_FOLLOW2=0.422, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iX1KVpOc1pqz for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A8521F85A7 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:36:26 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:36:25 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: Acznte4MMgw3V/ozQ9an9UA0WVrhmQ== Message-ID: <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:36:29 -0000 On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf= Of Arturo Servin >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:43 PM >> To: Dave Piscitello; Andrew Sullivan >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >>=20 >> Although I would prefer to only include number registries work >> compatible with name registries in the initial charter, in order to >> reach agreement I am not ok if we include name registries work in the >> initial charter. >=20 > Given what happened in Taipei, I have to agree that the names-after-numbe= rs approach is the right path for us. And I don't think my changes say otherwise. For the most part, I would like= the charter to encourage and incline name resource participants to engage = early in the process. I also think that if we want something that works for= all, we are better off with more parties than fewer. Lastly, and I did not= think to mention this before, there are some individuals who have worked w= ith internationalized registration data as well as IDN in the ICANN communi= ty who would be valuable additions to this working group. So if, as the cha= rter says, we need folks who have expertise in languages, scripts, and char= sets, it would be "nice" to give those folks some indication that they coul= d work to meet both name and number resource needs. > I don't understand what the objection is here. What is this insistence t= hat names absolutely have to be done in the first charter? Since we have n= umber registry prototypes already, it should be relatively short work to do= cument them, and then we can move on to the more challenging topic of names= . Even if names were in the charter, it seems like that's the course we wo= uld follow anyway. What is the purpose of two charters that divide work arbitrarily when at le= ast one of the stated objectives is to have a common framework? I really fi= nd the insistence that what happened in Taipei must define what happens sub= sequent strange. Many of us weren't in Taipei. And since Taipei we've had m= ore opportunities to socialize the work. In 3 months, we'd had had more.=20 > It also seems to me by making the first charter a smashing success, we'll= have the support and momentum to tackle the second one. I don't foliow the logic that concludes that adding name resources to the c= harter puts the working group in jeopardy of abject failure. And while I'm = tired and may sound contrary, I'm trying to understand why a Bof and mailin= g list that was initiated by number *and* name resource participants - sure= ly an indication of interest from both communities - is focused on which go= es first rather than how do we best solve the common problem. I'm off to bed. I appreciate everyone's patience and hope things look brigh= ter tomorrow. From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 9 22:00:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4281A21F8736 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:00:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.874, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_FOLLOW1=1.332, FRT_FOLLOW2=0.422, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vWMMpfrrcZ+Z for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668D721F8741 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:00:42 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:00:42 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:00:40 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: Acznte4MMgw3V/ozQ9an9UA0WVrhmQAAdo3g Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:00:44 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:36 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > What is the purpose of two charters that divide work arbitrarily when > at least one of the stated objectives is to have a common framework? I > really find the insistence that what happened in Taipei must define > what happens subsequent strange. Many of us weren't in Taipei. And > since Taipei we've had more opportunities to socialize the work. In 3 > months, we'd had had more. What happened in Taipei was resounding resistance to doing both names and n= umbers work, and some resistance to doing this work at all. I think what w= e have in the proposed charter Andrew did is a compromise between that fair= ly firm position and the feelings of the community to which you're referrin= g. A question that often comes up in IETF standards work is "If we build this,= who will come?" The feeling in the room was answered obviously for the nu= mber registries since a few of them showed up and presented their prototype= s. The feeling in the room was that name registries would be a far harder = sell, for both technical and political reasons. The expression "hot potato= " may only begin to capture the sentiment. I am certainly encouraged by the volunteering of name resource people to pa= rticipate in the work. I don't mean to suggest that isn't a valuable show = of support. But they, and we, are not the only ones with a say in this mat= ter. If numbers-first-names-second is a workable compromise against the resistan= ce I just described, I suggest we take it. > I don't foliow the logic that concludes that adding name resources to > the charter puts the working group in jeopardy of abject failure. CRISP is the evidence. We tried exactly what you're pushing for before, an= d it flopped. We would really, really, like not to do that again. If that= does happen again, it will be a long time, if ever, before the IETF ever t= ouches WHOIS again. Some risk management is highly appropriate here. > And while I'm tired and may sound contrary, I'm trying to understand why = a > Bof and mailing list that was initiated by number *and* name resource > participants - surely an indication of interest from both communities - > is focused on which goes first rather than how do we best solve the > common problem. I don't agree with that premise. The BoF and list were both initiated by p= eople who were either number resource participants or neutral parties. (I = sent the list request myself.) I don't recall any name resource people in = the room for the informal BoF in Quebec City, or among the pre-list people = that were co-operating on the initial set of drafts. I'm thrilled that the= y're here now, but that's not where we started. -MSK From aservin@lacnic.net Fri Feb 10 03:15:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8DB21F86B1 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:15:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nb2zaoL4JE9J for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758E521F86A7 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (r186-48-212-38.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.212.38]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2140F308490; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:15:52 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:15:50 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0980D907-E6BE-461D-9814-D583EA16DB4A@lacnic.net> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> To: Murray S. Kucherawy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:15:59 -0000 Murray, I am with you, do not get me wrong.=20 But I want this to move forward, if including name-regitries as = some have advocated is a requirement to break the loop and move forward = I am ok with that. =09 Regards, .as =09 On 10 Feb 2012, at 02:57, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Arturo Servin >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 6:43 PM >> To: Dave Piscitello; Andrew Sullivan >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >>=20 >> Although I would prefer to only include number registries work >> compatible with name registries in the initial charter, in order to >> reach agreement I am not ok if we include name registries work in the >> initial charter. >=20 > Given what happened in Taipei, I have to agree that the = names-after-numbers approach is the right path for us. >=20 > I don't understand what the objection is here. What is this = insistence that names absolutely have to be done in the first charter? = Since we have number registry prototypes already, it should be = relatively short work to document them, and then we can move on to the = more challenging topic of names. Even if names were in the charter, it = seems like that's the course we would follow anyway. >=20 > It also seems to me by making the first charter a smashing success, = we'll have the support and momentum to tackle the second one. >=20 > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@arin.net Fri Feb 10 05:51:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A1F21F872E for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:51:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id voqN2jHRpTgP for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:51:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA2121F8715 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 0CCC61650BF; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46B61650B4; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.19) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:51:34 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:51:52 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: John Levine Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCM/curj+5UG0a9RBxVYQthwpY07LuAgAAKXYCAAO0aAIAAl5AA Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:51:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120210044932.28136.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120210044932.28136.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <724F20425E139241BB1EE44B0C0596FD@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:51:57 -0000 On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:49 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> When did bulk whois come into scope? >>=20 >> The "including bulk access" could be dropped from the proposed=20 >> charter as it is unrelated to the protocol a future working group=20 >> might work on. >=20 > I'd like to keep it in mind even if it's not a deliverable. It might > well turn out that the schema for bulk access is that same as or close > to the schema for individual queries. For that matter, since web > servers are quite capable of delivering large gzipped responses, I > wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of making bulk access a kind > of query that returns a big compressed JSON or XML answer. That sounds reasonable to me. I don't have a problem looking at bulk access, but we shouldn't entangle qu= ery-access with the corner cases of bulk access. If the charter were to say= that possible future work would be about bulk access once the main goals o= f the group are achieved, that would be fine by me. -andy= From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Feb 10 06:37:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F33621F8779 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:37:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MbyBdhGpoamM for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9169921F8778 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:37:19 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andy Newton Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:37:12 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczoAX5KiqAWbiE9SdOu3M/5bvGhaQ== Message-ID: <733990B5-C228-4045-ACDC-2CD062EE4AF5@icann.org> References: <20120210044932.28136.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: John Levine , "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:37:21 -0000 Silly me. My brain locked onto a different bulk paradigm. Now illuminated I= agree this seems reasonable. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:52 AM, "Andy Newton" wrote: >=20 > On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:49 PM, John Levine wrote: >=20 >>>> When did bulk whois come into scope? >>>=20 >>> The "including bulk access" could be dropped from the proposed=20 >>> charter as it is unrelated to the protocol a future working group=20 >>> might work on. >>=20 >> I'd like to keep it in mind even if it's not a deliverable. It might >> well turn out that the schema for bulk access is that same as or close >> to the schema for individual queries. For that matter, since web >> servers are quite capable of delivering large gzipped responses, I >> wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of making bulk access a kind >> of query that returns a big compressed JSON or XML answer. >=20 > That sounds reasonable to me. >=20 > I don't have a problem looking at bulk access, but we shouldn't entangle = query-access with the corner cases of bulk access. If the charter were to s= ay that possible future work would be about bulk access once the main goals= of the group are achieved, that would be fine by me. >=20 > -andy > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From vesely@tana.it Fri Feb 10 09:29:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1E121F86A0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:29:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.641 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0SFwGmJ-R6CB for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:29:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A336321F863B for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:29:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1328894991; bh=BJFfVQdjosvwXd11t2dUxzJwi4HnSgjygUgKFdEA30M=; l=2411; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XO3e7AEET1m2T12bgHsl3u4GkoOfB8NxJmPyAkgqXyDELo0wgN/eAXNlkLGxwTw/n Trmw4gFpEHeMDLsszQ6R61VMx+qJkkT0sqBADRSB35LkAefw7P+lxdZJAy7Icu7LWH pWLyEy05aHRZS/6Y3WpM3MS+0uSJH381JuGYms3Y= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:29:51 +0100 id 00000000005DC042.000000004F35540F.0000741B Message-ID: <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:29:50 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> In-Reply-To: <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:29:53 -0000 On 09/Feb/12 16:18, Andy Newton wrote: > On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:03:45PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: > >>> And do we really need a separate draft describing the objects >>> being mapped vs one that does the mapping? >> >> I don't think so, but we had a strong argument in favour of it (see >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00380.html). >> The basic idea of the way the first of those is written is to solve >> that problem: basically, if the WG fails to come to agreement on the >> actual protocol, then we can publish something else that describes the >> objects. The "describe the objects" is a necessary part of the >> mapping anyway, it seemed to me, so I figured there was no risk in >> accepting this. Thank you, Andrew, for taking it into consideration. > Can I ask that those who think this is a necessary step look at the > RIR JSON response draft and explain how we are concretely benefited > by a textual abstraction of that information? And if the benefit is > the analysis of the different data elements, would a working group > report by a designee or design team be good enough to drive the > technical specifications forward? That kind of analysis is indeed the benefit. I note that the rir-json draft often says "The following is an elided example of a JSON response object [...]". Often, specifications say instead something like, say, "JSON responses SHALL be structured according to the following production rules [...]". I'm not suggesting the draft should use the second kind of wording, as that would probably result in less readable text. The draft also briefly describes most object members. Those descriptions don't really help understanding JSON formats. If they were in a separate paper, a sort of glossary, it would be easier to explain each term in more detail --where needed-- without hampering the description of protocol responses. The glossary can then be referenced by rir-json, as well as by any RIR's document willing to explain in even greater detail the checks and controls that they apply to a datum. In essence, this is what I suggest. Do you think your draft would improve by splitting those descriptions off? A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. From andy@arin.net Fri Feb 10 10:42:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3EA21F86F1 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:42:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GkOYZ1QSlXSu for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229A721F86F5 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id B7AC71650B8; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DC816506D; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.19) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:38:10 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:49 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: Alessandro Vesely Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCM/curj+5UG0a9RBxVYQthwpY07LuAgAAOEQCAAAbogIABtusAgAAUboA= Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:42:49 +0000 Message-ID: <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6E230E19D71A044E8F6809B15E514C91@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:42:58 -0000 On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > The draft also briefly describes most object members. Those > descriptions don't really help understanding JSON formats. If they > were in a separate paper, a sort of glossary, it would be easier to > explain each term in more detail --where needed-- without hampering > the description of protocol responses. The glossary can then be > referenced by rir-json, as well as by any RIR's document willing to > explain in even greater detail the checks and controls that they apply > to a datum. In essence, this is what I suggest. Do you think your > draft would improve by splitting those descriptions off? No, not to any great benefit. Or to put in another way, I do not think it w= ill do much to enhance the understanding of the data being conveyed. I thin= k most implementers will ignore a separate glossary style document. If ther= e are any data elements in the draft that need further explanation as to wh= at they mean, then we should enhance the text around them. Many of the elem= ents can be linked to other RFCs. > A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, > including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. Of they can simply refer to this draft or RFCs this draft references. -andy From johnl@iecc.com Fri Feb 10 12:37:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE9121F86F1 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.84 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.359, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LkfTVk1BkQKO for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53A621F86EF for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 76815 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2012 20:37:18 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2012 20:37:18 -0000 Date: 10 Feb 2012 20:36:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20120210203656.48342.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <0980D907-E6BE-461D-9814-D583EA16DB4A@lacnic.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] the charter is done X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:37:22 -0000 > But I want this to move forward, if including name-regitries as some have > have advocated is a requirement to break the loop and move forward I > am ok with that. I still haven't seen any reason to change Andrew's draft charter, which says that we work on son-of-WHOIS for numbers now, keeping in mind that the more of the design that can be resused for names, the better. This does not in any way preclude chartering a future WG to work on names, or for people to work on, say, a data model for names in parallel, perhaps checking in from time to time to let us know if there are design issues that might affect reusability. Most of the objections can be summarized as "Names are very important! You have to work on names right now!" The first sentence may well be true, but that is, shall we say, not actionable. With only one exception (thanks, Centralnic!) I haven't seen anyone who's said that they're prepared to do any of the name work in the timeframe we're talking about, and I also haven't seen any reason to doubt our belief that we're more likely to succeed if we address the numbers first. So it's time to declare that we're done with the charter and get to work. R's, John From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Feb 10 13:27:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8114721F8716 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:27:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esfuG86bYnOK for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:27:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0569A21F8639 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:27:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:27:46 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: John Levine Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:27:49 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] the charter is done Thread-Index: AczoOtRzTr6Qu+UKRlOf6R/uuI5pMA== Message-ID: <80CAAFFE-0704-46A5-BB80-4A497AF2FAAA@icann.org> References: <20120210203656.48342.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120210203656.48342.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] the charter is done X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:27:47 -0000 On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:36 PM, John Levine wrote: >> But I want this to move forward, if including name-regitries as some hav= e >> have advocated is a requirement to break the loop and move forward I >> am ok with that. >=20 > I still haven't seen any reason to change Andrew's draft charter, since some of us feel we have offered reasons and these apparently are not = the sorts of reasons - expressions of interest (several), willingness to wo= rk on charter, drafts (Afilias) commitment to continue experimentation (ICA= NN) or begin (CentralNIC) - and you steadfastly claim these are not compell= ing, perhaps you can give us the toll and we can try to meet it. > Most of the objections can be summarized as "Names are very important! > You have to work on names right now!" The first sentence may well be > true, but that is, shall we say, not actionable. I do not believe this is the case at all. I've made an erstwhile effort to= make clear that it's in the best interest of all to work together on the p= rotocol. I think working with some parallelism rather than single-threading= (number then name) would be beneficial, especially with regard to coming = to common terms with internationalized registration data issues. It's disap= pointing that you characterize my and other efforts this way.=20 If the majority of others on the list feel John's is a correct characteriza= tion then I'll fold my hand and spend time working on the data model since = I, too, want to get to work. =20 >=20 > With only one exception (thanks, Centralnic!) I haven't seen anyone > who's said that they're prepared to do any of the name work in the > timeframe we're talking about, and I also haven't seen any reason to > doubt our belief that we're more likely to succeed if we address the > numbers first. Also not true. ICANN the company is continuing its work and will do so as p= art of its obligations to the ICANN community. Afilias has indicated they'd= work on drafts. I've mentioned several times that ICANN's SSAC is working = on the domain data profile.=20 I fully understand you and I represent opposing views here. I've made an ef= fort to find a way forward. Please tell me what else you expect, whether yo= u have no intention of conceding ground on this matter, and whether yours i= s the prevailing sentiment.=20 > So it's time to declare that we're done with the charter and get to work. We agree.= From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Fri Feb 10 13:42:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270EE21F8537 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pz8ElwzhTsAO for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2365221F8535 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:12 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=jsVE3/I4lgxCJHVRei4eZEPa8Z0hR0TxViRBd0l2a8toowHzdgErqY1j jjoXEq6KI5OGkhcqnm9uTlMYEXzWORMnSjcoVvgz0rYjuZoXkqEiylEdv 4Bjel1GTogZ7ZGA; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1328910132; x=1360446132; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xKaWs4YuLwwNzGzcGc0mCqnGTyLUR+20i9iKTuwJB1k=; b=uMc2NgAQk6BP0OmeSxKxKExmPPHKHFMdMVE6eniV2qgwhMuH8RctUgxP Y+Ys7XZHvUJHd6fNf7JCcw3Wfp6v70jf8Cr4R4cYh90yBgh9GSWyrX2U7 L6S/GVFKQsay+EZ; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,398,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="5680897" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-006.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 13:42:10 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-006.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::5c45:283f:1e47:5cdf%17]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:42:03 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: John Levine Thread-Topic: [weirds] the charter is done Thread-Index: AQHM6DPcvqB+IoxoZU27UtyoH9dL8ZY3HpWA Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:42:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120210203656.48342.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120210203656.48342.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.38] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: Sf8ocxG8VStmZZwA+27++g== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8108081DD46E1446B5F90965DC933604@corp.ebay.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] the charter is done X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:42:13 -0000 On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:36 PM, John Levine wrote: I still haven't seen any reason to change Andrew's draft charter, which says that we work on son-of-WHOIS for numbers now, keeping in mind that the more of the design that can be resused for names, the better. This does not in any way preclude chartering a future WG to work on names, or for people to work on, say, a data model for names in parallel, perhaps checking in from time to time to let us know if there are design issues that might affect reusability. Reason to change Andrew's draft: It does not adequately address the issues = of interested parties (see RFC 2148). There is a demonstrated interest in a sp= ecification that supports both numbers and names, as is current practice with RFC 3912. PayPal has not expressed an implementation interest (others have) but we have expressed a consumer interest (see RFC 2148) and we believe that many other consumers desire a unified approach to numbers and names. Most of the objections can be summarized as "Names are very important! You have to work on names right now!" The first sentence may well be true, but that is, shall we say, not actionable. With respect, that's not what I'm hearing. I proposed modifications to Andr= ew's charter that reflect the first part of your statement; "names are important= ". I believe they should be considered as first-class citizens. My draft also makes it c= lear that names can (and will) be worked on later, not "right now". Numbers are "righ= t now". With only one exception (thanks, Centralnic!) I haven't seen anyone who's said that they're prepared to do any of the name work in the timeframe we're talking about, and I also haven't seen any reason to doubt our belief that we're more likely to succeed if we address the numbers first. I believe several have expressed interest in number work and that they are prepared to contribute according to reasonable timeframes, certainly within those as mentioned in my draft. Let me express doubt that a WG chartered as per Andrew's draft will succeed in developing a specification that can accommodate requirements of names. From the charter "The initial work list for the working group sha= ll not include work on name registry support, and development of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar to name registries." While there is other language in the proposed charter that indicates names = may be considered, the above statement clearly and directly gives WG members, the chair, and Area Directors the ability to shut down debate related to names. From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Feb 10 14:35:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C355521F8622 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:35:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d-D2tlykqCa2 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C1F21F85E5 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:35:11 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:35:14 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczoRD+diqdEwim1RZWmwfyNFjyeLA== Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:35:18 -0000 Thanks for the thoughtful response, see below. On Feb 10, 2012, at 1:00 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org] >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:36 PM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >>=20 >> What is the purpose of two charters that divide work arbitrarily when >> at least one of the stated objectives is to have a common framework? Can you comment on this question? >> What happened in Taipei was resounding resistance to doing both names an= d numbers work,=20 > A question that often comes up in IETF standards work is "If we build thi= s, who will come?" =20 I appreciate the recap. Children live with the shame of their fathers' sins= , I get it. I live it daily. > I am certainly encouraged by the volunteering of name resource people to = participate in the work. I don't mean to suggest that isn't a valuable sho= w of support. But they, and we, are not the only ones with a say in this m= atter. >=20 > If numbers-first-names-second is a workable compromise against the resist= ance I just described, I suggest we take it. Let me ask whether you think the charter as written accommodates the follow= ing or whether these specific requests could be accommodated: 1) Consideration for selectors appropriate for internationalized registrati= on data will accommodate both number and name resource needs. Specifically,= the charter will assure that we won't have to re-visit this issue and that= we won't have two. 2) Should a data profile for name resources be prepared and submitted in th= e same time frame as a number resource data profile, it won't be set aside = while/until the number data profile is considered. 3) Should a data profile be prepared, the WG would add it to the set of del= iverables. What I honestly fear from all the pushback is that the name resources effor= ts will meet persistent resistance, perhaps not from you or others who are = interested in the broader end game, but from others. I'd rather you tell me= now that I'm tilting windmills than go through again what I experienced wi= th IPng... From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Feb 10 15:42:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A44021F845E for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:42:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-Npo4vb7MsO for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:42:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB44121F8452 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:42:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:42:27 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:42:27 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:42:26 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczoRD+diqdEwim1RZWmwfyNFjyeLAABnJUg Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:42:28 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org] > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:35 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > >> What is the purpose of two charters that divide work arbitrarily when > >> at least one of the stated objectives is to have a common framework? >=20 > Can you comment on this question? I did, in the message to which you just replied. I said: "What happened in Taipei was resounding resistance to doing both names and = numbers work, and some resistance to doing this work at all. I think what = we have in the proposed charter Andrew did is a compromise between that fai= rly firm position and the feelings of the community to which you're referri= ng." That's the purpose of the division. I do not agree that it is arbitrary; I= believe it is an appropriate choice. > Let me ask whether you think the charter as written accommodates the > following or whether these specific requests could be accommodated: >=20 > 1) Consideration for selectors appropriate for internationalized > registration data will accommodate both number and name resource needs. > Specifically, the charter will assure that we won't have to re-visit > this issue and that we won't have two. In my view, the 20120209a charter does all of that except for "assure". If indeed all of the name proponents do come to the table early on in this = working group and stay there, the assurance comes from their presence and p= ersistence, and not from the charter. I think that's as good, or possibly = even better. > 2) Should a data profile for name resources be prepared and submitted > in the same time frame as a number resource data profile, it won't be > set aside while/until the number data profile is considered. The charter does not require it to be set aside, nor do I think the 2012020= 9a charter text could be effectively wielded as a tool to force that work t= o slow down or stop unless one could demonstrate that it is interfering wit= h the numbers work. So again, if cautious but deliberate momentum from nam= e proponents is there, I suspect the work will stick. > 3) Should a data profile be prepared, the WG would add it to the set of > deliverables. That would require a re-chartering. I'm told that's typically a lightweigh= t process. I don't know that it would be so lightweight in this case given= the history, but if the working group very clearly has the momentum to add= it without detriment to its existing deliverables, I can't imagine there w= ould be any legitimate resistance. It might be good if our sponsoring AD commented at this point. > What I honestly fear from all the pushback is that the name resources > efforts will meet persistent resistance, perhaps not from you or others > who are interested in the broader end game, but from others. I'd rather > you tell me now that I'm tilting windmills than go through again what I > experienced with IPng... I can only give you my own assurances based on my intent and experience. I= can't predict what others will do. -MSK From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Feb 10 18:14:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BE421F85F7 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:14:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 550CtzpYxrb2 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:14:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C26E21F84EA for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:14:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:14:38 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:14:42 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczoYugUqx/Mklg8RD6uCTToyTtc2w== Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:14:41 -0000 Again, thanks for your clarifications, personal assurances, and candor. I'll wait to hear from the AD regarding re-chartering. On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org] >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:35 PM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >>=20 >>>> What is the purpose of two charters that divide work arbitrarily when >>>> at least one of the stated objectives is to have a common framework? >>=20 >> Can you comment on this question? >=20 > I did, in the message to which you just replied. I said: >=20 > "What happened in Taipei was resounding resistance to doing both names an= d numbers work, and some resistance to doing this work at all. I think wha= t we have in the proposed charter Andrew did is a compromise between that f= airly firm position and the feelings of the community to which you're refer= ring." >=20 > That's the purpose of the division. I do not agree that it is arbitrary;= I believe it is an appropriate choice. >=20 >> Let me ask whether you think the charter as written accommodates the >> following or whether these specific requests could be accommodated: >>=20 >> 1) Consideration for selectors appropriate for internationalized >> registration data will accommodate both number and name resource needs. >> Specifically, the charter will assure that we won't have to re-visit >> this issue and that we won't have two. >=20 > In my view, the 20120209a charter does all of that except for "assure". >=20 > If indeed all of the name proponents do come to the table early on in thi= s working group and stay there, the assurance comes from their presence and= persistence, and not from the charter. I think that's as good, or possibl= y even better. >=20 >> 2) Should a data profile for name resources be prepared and submitted >> in the same time frame as a number resource data profile, it won't be >> set aside while/until the number data profile is considered. >=20 > The charter does not require it to be set aside, nor do I think the 20120= 209a charter text could be effectively wielded as a tool to force that work= to slow down or stop unless one could demonstrate that it is interfering w= ith the numbers work. So again, if cautious but deliberate momentum from n= ame proponents is there, I suspect the work will stick. >=20 >> 3) Should a data profile be prepared, the WG would add it to the set of >> deliverables. >=20 > That would require a re-chartering. I'm told that's typically a lightwei= ght process. I don't know that it would be so lightweight in this case giv= en the history, but if the working group very clearly has the momentum to a= dd it without detriment to its existing deliverables, I can't imagine there= would be any legitimate resistance. >=20 > It might be good if our sponsoring AD commented at this point. >=20 >> What I honestly fear from all the pushback is that the name resources >> efforts will meet persistent resistance, perhaps not from you or others >> who are interested in the broader end game, but from others. I'd rather >> you tell me now that I'm tilting windmills than go through again what I >> experienced with IPng... >=20 > I can only give you my own assurances based on my intent and experience. = I can't predict what others will do. >=20 > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From vesely@tana.it Sat Feb 11 02:22:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF74821F85AF for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:22:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.633 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p+PwcJkMnk4S for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:22:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A5821F85AA for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:22:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1328955730; bh=njV78yfI350aBmRJRU7fxe3ehhI5DuPARlNGh5oR5po=; l=1875; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gXP1SIWdwB7mpHHG8bFuuGBscwu2KBN3dhEa81JOzB1a6e79ekf3fAG3ANMaxJx1c Pw1GVC3/0FE6UTB5tV0pDFQK2fLPIUssLkYRke654FJXdMPQ86kE5G2qYAB4pGj5vA cLkS7DwXTjmzbmA72HoRFD07sfvOfqEMsfdA+uPQ= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:22:10 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F364152.00005BDA Message-ID: <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:22:10 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> In-Reply-To: <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:22:13 -0000 On 10/Feb/12 19:42, Andy Newton wrote: > On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> If [semantic descriptions] were in a separate paper, a sort of >> glossary, it would be easier to explain each term in more detail >> --where needed-- without hampering the description of protocol >> responses. [...] Do you think your draft would improve by >> splitting those descriptions off? > > No, not to any great benefit. Well, neutral may still be acceptable, hopefully. If writing your spec got negatively affected by the need to produce a separate data dictionary, then the latter would have to be dropped. > Or to put in another way, I do not think it will do much to enhance > the understanding of the data being conveyed. I think most > implementers will ignore a separate glossary style document. If I may paraphrase John Levine, from rir-json I don't get whether [startAddress, endAddress] is the smallest surrounding allocation, rather than all of the enclosing allocations. In addition, I suspect that the meaning of those registries' data is so obvious to you that you almost consider those terms part of everyday English. I think the glossary will mostly be useful to implementers of non-weirds specs that need to use weirds clients for their own purposes. > If there are any data elements in the draft that need further > explanation as to what they mean, then we should enhance the text > around them. If they get too large, you'd have to relegate them in their own sections, so that non-interested readers can skip them easily. >> A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, >> including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. > > Of they can simply refer to this draft or RFCs this draft references. Hm... Why doesn't rir-json refer to the data described in RFC 4698? From peter@denic.de Sat Feb 11 06:02:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E89621F849D for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:02:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPP7gQTBYl7h for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:02:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B85221F8459 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:02:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RwDX9-00047o-77; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:02:35 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RwDX9-0000yg-1A; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:02:35 +0100 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:02:34 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120211140234.GQ1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120210044932.28136.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:02:38 -0000 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:51:52PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: > If the charter were to say that possible future work would be about bulk access once the main goals of the group are achieved, that would be fine by me. +1; "bulk" is a significantly different beast under technical/operational and policy aspects and that would apply independently to names and numbers. -Peter From galvin+weirds@elistx.com Sun Feb 12 14:45:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFCD21F86F4 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:45:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jt-2qQCeDLbu for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14ADC21F86F3 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0LZA00K4RXT9VL@elistx.com> for weirds@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:43:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:46:21 -0500 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> To: weirds@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:45:54 -0000 Thank you Andrew, for this revised charter. I have three suggestions=20 to offer. First, let me say "+1" to everything Dave Piscitello is saying. I=20 could send one for every message but I think that would unnecessarily=20 clutter this list. Second, I tend not to be long-winded on IETF lists, neither in length=20 nor number of messages. I can only hope that won't be especially=20 problematic. Finally, my suggestions are below. -- On February 9, 2012 8:41:25 AM -0500 Andrew Sullivan=20 wrote regarding [weirds] New new proposed=20 charter text -- > Colleagues, the attached is a proposal -- not, note, a = =E2=80=9Cdecision=E2=80=9D > -- for a WG charter. Those who do not like this proposal are welcome > (indeed, I urge you) to make an alternative proposal, or send > replacement text. In the spirit of getting to the point, here are my suggestions. 1. In the following sentence: The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. Can the final phrase "without the requirement that name registries be=20 accommodated" be dropped? I believe there is plenty of text to give priority to number=20 registries, and I completely agree to that principle, e.g., see my=20 third suggestion below. However, this final phrase seems unnecessarily = pejorative to me. In various ways the comment has been made that we should not repeat=20 history. I believe it is safe to say that we are all now on notice not = to do so. The set of people in this effort are not the same set of=20 people who were in the historical effort. I think it's at least an=20 overstatement to hold us all accountable for the events of history,=20 although I agree it is absolutely necessary to remind us of history=20 lest we repeat it. Can we move on now? 2. In the following two sentences: The initial 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 needs peculiar to 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. In the spirit of at least leaving the door ajar for us to work=20 together, could this be "softened" just a bit by removing the following = phrase in the first sentence: not include work on name registry support, and the development of the number registry support will The result would be that the first sentence reads as follows: The initial work list for the working group shall not be constrained by needs peculiar to name registries. I submit that this achieves the desired goal and, as above, eliminates=20 a duplicative phrase that is unnecessarily pejorative. 3. In the following sentence: Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. Could the final phrase "at the beginning of work" be changed to the=20 following: if it unreasonably constrains or delays the progress of work in support of the number registries. I submit that this phrase is more forceful than the current one and=20 ensures a consistent operating principle throughout the life of the=20 working group as opposed to just at the beginning. Thanks, Jim From bje@apnic.net Sun Feb 12 22:22:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8211821F86B5 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:22:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zjHC9jbpLzwI for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF27121F8691 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:21:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:213c:e744:1cc5:d2d3] (unknown [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:213c:e744:1cc5:d2d3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22345B66B3; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:21:55 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:21:54 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> To: Alessandro Vesely X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:22:01 -0000 On 11/02/2012, at 8:22 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 10/Feb/12 19:42, Andy Newton wrote: >> On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, >>> including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. >>=20 >> Of they can simply refer to this draft or RFCs this draft references. >=20 > Hm... Why doesn't rir-json refer to the data described in RFC 4698? I'm not sure how useful the areg addressRangeType is =85 =85 given it doesn't specify the start or end in any greater detail than = the rir-json-00 draft :-) I prefer to get feedback on what is not clear in the rir-json draft and = clarify it there, and create a separate document if there becomes an = obvious need for it. For most data types, I would expect to be = referring to other RFCs for syntax, such as for email address, FQDN, or = textual representation of an IP address. For what it's worth, start address is the first address in a block, and = end address is the last address in a block. Byron= From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Feb 13 05:30:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AB221F84D1 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:30:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.936, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HPHCmFIZeGE for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B47021F84CF for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29BE91ECB41C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:31:08 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120213133108.GA22144@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] Planning to make a BoF request X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:55 -0000 Dear colleagues, Given the current discussion about the charter, I'm going to follow Murray's suggestion and request a BoF in Paris. I will do so today. Best, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Feb 13 07:26:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710E421F863F for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:26:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KKCwrylAtWui for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0540D21F863E for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8C641ECB41C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:25:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:26:16 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:26:03 -0000 --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Dear colleagues, As far as I know, the attached represent all the competing charter versions that have recently been posted. I modified the text I proposed with the most recent suggestions, I think. Files are named with the initals of the person who proposed. If anyone has another competitor to enter, please do so. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="weirds-charter-2012-02-09-bs.txt" Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-02-09b Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, and Barry Leiba Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion 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). WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. While many registries share a basic output format, the addition of data elements causes problems for parsers of the data. A formal data model could mitigate these problems. While name and number resource registry databases contain much data in common, enough differences exist to suggest that a single data model is inappropriate for a standardization effort. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. Significant reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more are anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number resource registries and one on names. Given the additional implementation experience with number resource registries, starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. However, it is important that any such work consider name resources and not make choices that preclude a unified approach. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework capable of supporting multiple data models (e.g. number and name). That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 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. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. Rigorous machine-friendly data models, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. 3. A grammar for queries, so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for the query. The working group shall also develop a data profiles (or object format) using the above framework. The data profiles shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries and name registries. Milestones November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. November 2012 An Internet-Draft describing the data framework To be employed. December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects required by number registries that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. April 2013 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects required By name registries. that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. December 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specification for name resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="weirds-charter-20120213ajs.txt" Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-02-13ajs Chairs: TBD Applications Area Directors: Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, and Barry Leiba Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion 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). While name and number resource registry databases contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol 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. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more might be anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number resource registries. The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 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. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. This includes a grammar for queries so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for that type of query. 3. Support for differential service levels according to different classes of user. The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit support of other registries including, in so far as needs can be foreseen, name registries. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial 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 needs peculiar to 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. It is expected that the Working Group would change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry support. Milestones November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="weirds-charter-20120213jg.txt" Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-02-13-jg Chairs: TBD Applications Area Directors: Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, and Barry Leiba Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion 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). While name and number resource registry databases contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol 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. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more might be anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number resource registries. The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with number resource registries may yield quick results. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 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. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any data profiles the Working Group delivers. This includes a grammar for queries so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for that type of query. 3. Support for differential service levels according to different classes of user. The working group shall also develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit support of other registries including, in so far as needs can be foreseen, name registries. The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial work list for the working group shall not be constrained by needs peculiar to 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope if it unreasonably constrains or delays the progress of work in support of number resource registries. It is expected that the Working Group would change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry support. Milestones November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="weirds-charter-20120213dp.txt" Worthwhile Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DRAFT Charter v 2012-02-13dp Chairs: TBD Applications Area Directors: Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, and Barry Leiba Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion 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). While name and number resource registry databases contain some kinds of data in common, there are significant differences between them, both in respect what data they contain, and in the operating models of the respective communities. An important difference is that number resource registries do not have the sort of competitive retail market that is common to many domain name registries. Number resource registries are also fewer in number than name registries. This may influence the time to achieve consensus on name registry database considerations WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-base solution (common convention) for internationalization for number and name registries that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. Response (and error) composition is left to the discretion of the service provider. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen-scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. Many of the domain name registries do share a basic common output format, although the addition of data elements changes the output and may cause problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol 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. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires implementers to understand the details of the transport it is using. Some registries have deployed experimental services that provide the registration information services traditionally offered via WHOIS. These use a RESTful approach to data delivery over the web. Four such efforts have been undertaken, and more might be anticipated in response to deployment of IDNA. Three of the efforts have been on the part of number resource registries. The existing experience with number resource registries, and their differences with name registries, suggests that starting work with framework and protocol considerations that are common to both number and name resource registries (so that, to the extent possible, commonality is achieved) and attending quickly thereafter to number specific considerations may yield quick results. Experimentation by (or on behalf of) name registries will dictate how quickly name specific considerations are incorporated into the WG's program of work. The Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS). The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST, and without the requirement that name registries be accommodated. In addition, the following three priorities take precedence over others from RFC 3707: 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 what selector or selectors ( e.g., character set, language-script, language-country) are necessary. Without significant participation from internationalization experts, this requirement will be all but impossible to meet. 2. A rigorous machine-friendly data model, both for the overall protocol and for any number or name resource data profiles the Working Group delivers. This includes a grammar for queries so that all servers that support a given kind of query accept the same syntax for that type of query. 3. Support for differential service levels according to different classes of user. The working group shall initially develop a data profile (or object format) using the above framework. The initial data profile shall provide the necessary support for operation of number registries. A separate data profile shall be developed by (or on behalf of) name registries in parallel with or subsequent to the number resource profile. The base specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit support of other registries including, in so far as needs can be foreseen, name registries. The initial work list for the working group shall not preclude work on name registry support. 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted and encouraged. Milestones November 2012 Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. December 2012 An Internet-Draft listing the specific data objects that make up the set of things the WG shall map, possibly describing a common factor that is large enough for the needs of the WG's initial object specification. This I-D shall be subject to WG LC but shall not actually proceed to the IESG unless the object specification (below) subsequently fails, in which case this shall be sent to the IESG for publication as Informational RFC. April 2013 Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on the standards track. July 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. September 2013 Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name resource registries to IESG for publication on the standards track. --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4-- From Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com Mon Feb 13 09:44:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3EB21F8507 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.352 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j48RGzeTLyvb for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E10D221F84BD for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20177 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 2012 17:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2012 17:44:02 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=xHg2IQHwhI3Ig/Nd7wmWNGFygwXniFQcbt86fiNfCGc=; b=xZY1cJA9XLsZ/TOjvlkzxAPiy4JWzgxqj0v89gUtnEOuThrOO9RS1lLB6IA5GKjE372mO215nr7UUFFeaouwSJ8zkdAnk/Qvgg6Vtnzdpo9MfP0ub5Hg82VJPbGXu1Yd; Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.136.165]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RwzwX-00074U-Dp for weirds@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:44:01 -0700 Message-ID: <4F394BE1.4090009@KingsMountain.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:01 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.26) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/3.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Subject: Re: [weirds] Minutes uploaded (IETF-82 Taipei Weirds BoF) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:44:04 -0000 Andrew Sullivan said on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:47:44 -0500: > > I have uploaded minutes from our meeting in Taipei. Apologies for the > delay, and thanks to Olafur for taking them. Errors and omissions > are, as usual, my fault. here they are on-list for convenience: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/weirds.txt WEIRDS BOF session IETF 82 2011-11-16 9:00 - 11:30 Minutes taken by Olafur Gudmundsson, edited by Andrew Sullivan After presentations on the existing implementations of Whois-like data delivered in a RESTful framework, there was considerable discussion. There appeared to be agreement that there were issues with IRIS that caused people not to implement or deploy significant parts of it. There appeared to be agreement that the RIR/number regsistry issues were fairly well understood and possible to solve. Several people expressed considerable scepticism about the chances of success in response to domain name registry issues. At the same time, there appeared to be moderate agreement that there were issues to be solved for name registries. There appeared to be both data provider-side and data consumer-side demand for some work. This included strong support for the notion that the data be easily machine usable. There were expressions of support for starting with a smaller problem (just number registries) to begin with. 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. The BOF chairs asked a number of questions: 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'. Can we come up with a problem statement in a reasonable time - for number registries? There was a loud-to-medium hum for 'yes', none for 'no'. - for domain name registres? There was a faint hum for 'yes' and a louder hum for 'no'. For the number registries, if we build something do you believe there is zero chance of deployment? There was no hum for 'yes' and a slight hum for 'no'. The chairs asked whether there would be volunteers to work on drafts, and perhaps 10 hands went up. The chairs asked whether there would be volunteers to review drafts, and perhaps 20 hands went up. There were three people willing to express a willingness to chair a working group. The chairs thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting on time. --- end From Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com Mon Feb 13 09:49:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A09F21F862A for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:49:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.329, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzLP9jz988a8 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 748C321F8593 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20634 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 2012 17:49:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2012 17:49:00 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=+yhlENzAjJ1kSq9RwVL+lLOm/FlXK/lUVG+d2gvxfNc=; b=ojArceBlT4rnC3AUAmfI5TXr4O4qWLDwql568d5n1zGJCcEKQALJuaw61aQbWb1GigthtZ7mCYr9Qy21uYqYY4wzwD2DsGZFhBbPPiRrQjTMglhddVECU8a91qvh8uDJ; Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.136.165]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rx01K-0003m6-Ot for weirds@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:48:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4F394D0A.2090602@KingsMountain.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:48:58 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.26) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/3.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:49:02 -0000 Murray said.. > > What happened in Taipei was resounding resistance to doing both > names and numbers work, well, there was resistance yes, but I wouldn't characterize it as "resounding". (i was there too) fyi/fwiw. =JeffH From andy@arin.net Mon Feb 13 11:06:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A379C21F8712 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:06:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTS6n6qVTEfS for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:06:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D958421F8710 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:06:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 6469A164EFF; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:06:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5614164EED for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:06:04 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.49] (10.1.0.49) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:06:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:06:04 -0500 From: Andy Newton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.0.49] Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:06:06 -0000 On 02/13/2012 01:21 AM, Byron Ellacott wrote: > On 11/02/2012, at 8:22 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> On 10/Feb/12 19:42, Andy Newton wrote: >>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>>> A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, >>>> including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. >>> >>> Of they can simply refer to this draft or RFCs this draft references. >> >> Hm... Why doesn't rir-json refer to the data described in RFC 4698? > > I'm not sure how useful the areg addressRangeType is … > > > > > > > > > … given it doesn't specify the start or end in any greater detail than the rir-json-00 draft :-) > > I prefer to get feedback on what is not clear in the rir-json draft and clarify it there, and create a separate document if there becomes an obvious need for it. For most data types, I would expect to be referring to other RFCs for syntax, such as for email address, FQDN, or textual representation of an IP address. I agree with Byron. 4698 doesn't do a better job with these elements... and that's coming from a person who has their name on 4698. -andy From Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com Mon Feb 13 11:21:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E6821F873C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:21:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.063 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nJl4vIFMPA2b for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 43A0F21F86E8 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4902 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 2012 19:21:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2012 19:21:23 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Xj0H3dTwoplzRGpaMvYI3JQf/jEo7o6FeS9gtKPRuaQ=; b=qXMU7jPtF/nsDGtWoY8dlkW7qlG5qRnqfNDsk3HAHt2yZeiKpyq/tc5ai4GS1XvR0RPSbjzBAi7J2hp7EdmeGRTgluIZr5quG0fv/sMYRzq9D2c7pU7b5jufQh9bQ8pH; Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.136.165]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rx1Sk-0000Y2-1R; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:21:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4F3962B2.7050009@KingsMountain.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:21:22 -0800 From: =JeffH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.26) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/3.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Newton , Byron Ellacott , Alessandro Vesely Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com} Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] Bulk transfer, rir-json draft, and RFC 4698 (was: New new proposed charter text) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:21:24 -0000 [ forking this off to different Subject thread where it belongs - pls use= new=20 subject for this (sub)thread ] Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text From: Andy Newton Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:06:04 -0500 (11:06 PST) To: On 02/13/2012 01:21 AM, Byron Ellacott wrote: > On 11/02/2012, at 8:22 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> On 10/Feb/12 19:42, Andy Newton wrote: >>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>>> A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, >>>> including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. >>> >>> Of they can simply refer to this draft or RFCs this draft references= =2E >> >> Hm... Why doesn't rir-json refer to the data described in RFC 4698? > > I'm not sure how useful the areg addressRangeType is =C2=85 > > > > > > > > > =C2=85 given it doesn't specify the start or end in any greater detail= than the=20 rir-json-00 draft :-) > > I prefer to get feedback on what is not clear in the rir-json draft an= d=20 clarify it there, and create a separate document if there becomes an obvi= ous=20 need for it. For most data types, I would expect to be referring to othe= r RFCs=20 for syntax, such as for email address, FQDN, or textual representation of= an IP=20 address. I agree with Byron. 4698 doesn't do a better job with these elements... and that's coming from a person who has their name on 4698. -andy _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From galvin+weirds@elistx.com Mon Feb 13 13:51:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6B121F8656 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:51:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2zkQoG-X1tY for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0820021F8646 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0LZC00A7ZPYRMB@elistx.com> for weirds@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:49:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:52:09 -0500 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: <20120213133108.GA22144@mail.yitter.info> To: weirds@ietf.org Message-id: <2109E0A18642818F5D8AACDB@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20120213133108.GA22144@mail.yitter.info> Subject: Re: [weirds] Planning to make a BoF request X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:41 -0000 If approved I will be at this BOF session. Jim -- On February 13, 2012 8:31:08 AM -0500 Andrew Sullivan wrote regarding [weirds] Planning to make a BoF request -- > Dear colleagues, > > Given the current discussion about the charter, I'm going to follow > Murray's suggestion and request a BoF in Paris. I will do so today. > > Best, > > Andrew From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Feb 13 13:58:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F93A21F866C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:58:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id alLvf-AcFjsZ for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:58:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1044921F866A for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:58:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C69A1ECB41C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:58:02 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120213215801.GN22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <4F394BE1.4090009@KingsMountain.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F394BE1.4090009@KingsMountain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] Jabber log (was: Minutes uploaded (IETF-82 Taipei Weirds BoF)) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:58:10 -0000 Dear colleagues, On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:44:01AM -0800, =JeffH wrote: > > here they are on-list for convenience: > > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/weirds.txt I also found (thanks to the secretariat!) the jabber log from that session: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/weirds@jabber.ietf.org/2011-11-16.html. Also, of course, people can listen to the audio archive. We were in room 102 on 2011-11-16 at 09:00. That appears to be (and sounds to me like) this file: http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf82/ietf82-102-20111116-0855-am.mp3. The line at the mic opens at 54:00 according to the mp3 player I have here, so if you want to skip over the presentations and hear what people had to say, you can fast forward. John Klensin is the first speaker once the mic line opens. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From avri@acm.org Mon Feb 13 22:33:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A570A21E8076 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:33:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aAhmLQ7K-OaE for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2276721E8075 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RxBwt-000N20-HZ for weirds@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:33:11 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:33:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:33:12 -0000 But if the work is declared out of scope or not included in milestones, = then whatever is done will be done separately from the WG and would = probably end up with a different solution. And given the whois service = needs for name registries, I think the work will be done. So we end up = with yet another bad solution - a solution that requires multiple = applications It strikes me reading this whole debate that doing something only for, = or even primarily for numbers as opposed to both numbers and names is = likely to result in yet another useless effort in the long run.=20 I still read the proposed charter, even with James's softeners, as = telling the names registry people to go away. Which I expect will = result in the self fulfilling prophesy some people may be shooting for. I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two = requirements on a par is rejected by the IESG. If there is a BOF in Paris, I will try to attend remotely. I will also = contribute to an effort intended for names registries, wherever it might = be done. avri On 9 Feb 2012, at 06:31, John R. Levine wrote: >> A certain Internet governing body has made an art form out of = duplicating >> effort in the Whois arena. I would hope to avoid duplicating that >> experience. >=20 > Indeed. Remember, the IETF is all volunteers. If you think it's = important, don't tell other people what to do, do the work. >=20 > I don't think that a separate WHOIS for names would be a good idea = either, but doing names first, or even at the same time, ain't gonna = happen unless the people who claim it's important do the work. >=20 > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From johnl@iecc.com Mon Feb 13 22:53:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE13C21E8039 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:53:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.969 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.230, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lAlbrdpxHaTH for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B0621E8013 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 37045 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2012 06:53:57 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2012 06:53:57 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3a0505.xn--30v786c.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=YmZ07vXqBgRymOavUR2XxKXvUjMWQhs7hVpNVqYSIl8=; b=knK6lnU2bWKZygt/ZYvgKdZu4qc5YZXfaNuHtbqnr7r5no5bQmTpkLE4fY4z+7GYhxLm/JJY8Q5VVGn9TzxIasR3vDU2y6t6z/vYRQ2/Qxr9dyXDpK7KNR5wKq2pqv8Adrd/8H4bZR4zGRB5kXaT7Klrww50DqPBpTLUXo7ajS4= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 14 Feb 2012 06:53:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:53:59 -0000 >I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two requirements >on a par is rejected by the IESG. The IETF is an entirely volunteer organization. Which parts of the extra work for names that you propose are you planning to work on? Also, as I presume you're aware, a group called CRISP tried to do a complete name and numbers WHOIS replacement like you're suggesting, and it completely failed. Do you think that doing the same thing again would have a different result? If so, why? R's, John PS: This question is directed at everyone who wants to do the whole thing at once, not just at Avri. From avri@acm.org Mon Feb 13 23:32:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE65021E804F for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHQ2txMgjRnN for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBBE21E803C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RxCsH-000OsM-6r for weirds@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:32:27 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:30 -0000 Dear John, I understand the nature of the pure 'volunteer' nature of the IETF work = very well. It comes in at least 2 flavors, the pure volunteer work that = is funded by corporate interests and the pure volunteer work that is = self funded by the volunteers. As a volunteer of the second flavor, I intend to work on the model for = names (or the common model if there is such) and will at least comment = on grammars. I have been working toward the requirements for a names = model in the ICANN (or is this an organization "not to be named' in = polite IETF company?) context and was happy to see that there was a = possibility that the model work which is starting up now, though I am = not yet involved, was moving to the IETF, a context I am comfortable = with after many years - though I admit not in the applications area. As for why the future won't end up like the past. Can't say. I guess = it has a lot to do with how people work together and whether there is = animus between groups of participants. I think the current charter, in = most of its versions initiates the process in a negative way and thus = should be avoided. As I was not part of Crisp and have not gone back to = study its archives, I really cant give more of an analysis that that. avri On 14 Feb 2012, at 07:53, John Levine wrote: >> I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two = requirements >> on a par is rejected by the IESG. >=20 > The IETF is an entirely volunteer organization. Which parts of the > extra work for names that you propose are you planning to work on? >=20 > Also, as I presume you're aware, a group called CRISP tried to do a > complete name and numbers WHOIS replacement like you're suggesting, > and it completely failed. Do you think that doing the same thing > again would have a different result? If so, why? >=20 > R's, > John >=20 > PS: This question is directed at everyone who wants to do the whole > thing at once, not just at Avri. >=20 From peter@denic.de Tue Feb 14 00:44:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B78A21F8743 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:44:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzTJKEqYvtky for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:44:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAB721F8733 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:44:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1RxDze-00074c-21; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:44:10 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1RxDzd-0002Cx-UL; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:44:09 +0100 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:44:09 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:44:12 -0000 Andrew, > As far as I know, the attached represent all the competing charter > versions that have recently been posted. I modified the text I > proposed with the most recent suggestions, I think. Files are named > with the initals of the person who proposed. thanks for this work. What is the next step, are we going to gauge consensus on either of these? -Peter From andy@arin.net Tue Feb 14 03:07:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E287F21F8722 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:07:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtnZ4rYYojDH for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:07:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8BD21F86B9 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:07:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 1F33C16503F; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E9E165034; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:07:41 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:07:43 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: John Levine Thread-Topic: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Thread-Index: AQHM5sluvCI9jzTOvEujN5mVd1ahCJY0In2AgAAMkICAAAr5gIAAHZuAgAAGooCAB+0EgIAABbWAgABHAwA= Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:07:43 +0000 Message-ID: <5A735E47-485D-47D0-844E-60A536B96D09@arin.net> References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.96] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:08:00 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:53 AM, John Levine wrote: > Also, as I presume you're aware, a group called CRISP tried to do a > complete name and numbers WHOIS replacement like you're suggesting, > and it completely failed. Do you think that doing the same thing > again would have a different result? If so, why? As an observation from having been through CRISP and now this, it does seem= an apples to oranges comparison. CRISP spent a good amount of time working= on a requirements document. After they were done with that, they spent a g= ood amount of time deciding between an LDAP approach and a BEEP/XML approac= h (only later to jettison BEEP). And, as I recall, it did names first then = numbers. The set of participants were also entirely made up of registry ope= rators and no active end users. Draw your own conclusions. -andy= From carlosm3011@gmail.com Tue Feb 14 03:40:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0957921F879C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:40:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfJ+bcfgIq-h for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F0421F8797 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnq2 with SMTP id q2so3297238ggn.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:40:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=79OkVGAihg6beFicE6NJcPbDzgtNWSfCBbxgjIGxGBs=; b=ohGZzp8sWrjfAhCW1m5EIaZ39Eu/jSoODLeW96TQIOIHeMjepKWdROSkRLwQjZ6OT3 I75vyfeaU1W2LkynCELcr5FQq8UJvqI6IKsIAtA2lQUnezEzj/jrPK/6mkj2otOYu6+x 1wL/15KblNytnwelTGys0W3apB5ELDNK8j87o= Received: by 10.236.197.1 with SMTP id s1mr7073994yhn.89.1329219654770; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:40:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b5sm31037ann.8.2012.02.14.03.40.52 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:40:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3A4843.8050608@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:40:51 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:40:56 -0000 I don't think we are telling anyone to go away. I see this as breaking down a problem into more tractable parts. It has repeatedly been pointed out in this list that the "go-for-it-all-at-once" approach has been tried before and that it failed miserably, so wisdom would appear to dictate that maybe breaking down the problem into smaller chunks can be (nothing is for sure in this world) a better way forward. Although I work for a number registry, I would be extremely happy to work with the name registries, and I encourage them to follow the work of the group and create and document their own RESTful WHOIS reference implementations. In other words, we need more "running code" as much as we need more consensus. No one is a second-class citizen here, but the fact here is that we have two related problems we want to solve, and one of them is harder than the other. This is not an unheard-of approach. Some working groups get a charter, work on a problem, then re-charter and move on. regards Carlos On 2/14/12 5:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Dear John, > > I understand the nature of the pure 'volunteer' nature of the IETF work very well. It comes in at least 2 flavors, the pure volunteer work that is funded by corporate interests and the pure volunteer work that is self funded by the volunteers. > > As a volunteer of the second flavor, I intend to work on the model for names (or the common model if there is such) and will at least comment on grammars. I have been working toward the requirements for a names model in the ICANN (or is this an organization "not to be named' in polite IETF company?) context and was happy to see that there was a possibility that the model work which is starting up now, though I am not yet involved, was moving to the IETF, a context I am comfortable with after many years - though I admit not in the applications area. > > As for why the future won't end up like the past. Can't say. I guess it has a lot to do with how people work together and whether there is animus between groups of participants. I think the current charter, in most of its versions initiates the process in a negative way and thus should be avoided. As I was not part of Crisp and have not gone back to study its archives, I really cant give more of an analysis that that. > > avri > > On 14 Feb 2012, at 07:53, John Levine wrote: > >>> I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two requirements >>> on a par is rejected by the IESG. >> The IETF is an entirely volunteer organization. Which parts of the >> extra work for names that you propose are you planning to work on? >> >> Also, as I presume you're aware, a group called CRISP tried to do a >> complete name and numbers WHOIS replacement like you're suggesting, >> and it completely failed. Do you think that doing the same thing >> again would have a different result? If so, why? >> >> R's, >> John >> >> PS: This question is directed at everyone who wants to do the whole >> thing at once, not just at Avri. >> > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Feb 14 04:47:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F1B21F86CF for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:47:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ER02LmRPGWNN for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:47:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA18921F86A4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:47:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FFF21ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:46:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:46:56 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:47:01 -0000 Dear colleagues, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:33:09AM +0100, Avri Doria wrote: > be done. So we end up with yet another bad solution - a solution > that requires multiple applications One of the things I'm finding troubling about this discussion is the repeated claim that it is obviously better to have one protocol for accessing the registration data for number resources and for names, that we need one application for this, and so on. As nearly as I can tell, the only premise in support of that conclusion is that it's the way things are now: we have whois, therefore we need to "replace whois", and that means a new system that does everything whois does, only without all the crummy bits. One of the things that has come up in response to this effort, however (both in QuĂ©bec at the APPSAWG meeting and in the BoF in Taipei) was the observation that the premise could be wrong. Maybe the reason whois sucks, and maybe one reason RWhois and Whois++ and IRIS have all met with limited success, is that they're trying to be one tool to access two very different kinds of data, or data used for different purposes, or both. While it is true that some of the data in these different types of repositories are quite similar, even when the data are similar the use model is quite different. For instance, while RIRs have contact data, the operational model is highly centralized; name registries often have the contact data stored in different repositories, and in any case it's often obfuscated on purpose. Given the above, it is entirely possible that there would be so little in common in a "single protocol" between these two types of repository that all the real work would be done in the mappings. In that case, the protocol would be much more complicated than it would need to be just for the sake of saying we have one protocol. This is another reason to consider working on only half the problem at once: if it turns out that the number resoure registry support effectively demands things incompatible with name registries -- even while we are thinking about the needs of those name registries, and doing so in good faith -- then that means we do in fact need different systems. That might be frustrating, but I often find that the world is not arranged in the way I wish it were (for instance, I'm none of rich, beautiful, nor young). I happen to believe that there's probably more in common there than this worst-case suggestion implies, but I don't think we should prejudge this matter. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From michael@mwyoung.ca Tue Feb 14 05:07:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AEC21F85FB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.072 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.527, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HKQQaymWM0By for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33E521F845E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so3357917yhk.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.34.202 with SMTP id b10mr34374644igj.2.1329224859034; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id np10sm26213480igc.0.2012.02.14.05.07.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:07:38 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Avri Doria'" , References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:07:31 -0500 Message-ID: <012a01cceb19$9ddfa050$d99ee0f0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFBzplinv5ZHoPyHy19Irl81ZnpBgFrXFOKl0c1hYA= Content-Language: en-ca X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkVf5UV4mxEMDbyAZX4mEAeyB6qehVPMQ6Ju0zyk16CgvxM7VfpyZoCHgjF6P/NsEEBXPmq Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:07:41 -0000 Hi John, I'm confused, maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't seem right to call out one person's intended effort unless we plan to ask everyone to make equal declarations - then it's fair game. That said, I think we should do just that just so we have a clear idea of what work resources are available to the effort. This can be provided to the IESG at the same time as the charter to prop up the declared workflow. CRISP went sideways IMHO because it became too academic an exercise and did not concentrate enough on solving operational pain points. It costs real money to transition to new protocols - lots of money - and the return on investment for IRIS was clearly not high enough to make the entire industry voluntarily jump to it. Well that and it wasn't mandated by any type of authority - another type of pain point. The timing is much better now to work on this problem, IDNs alone have created a significant additional pain point, more TLDs with the NGTLD program and new numbers with IPv6 increases existing pain points. If we write something that considers not just the run-rate operational and development issues, but ALSO migration issues, I suspect there's enough overall pain and subsequent return on investment, to get folks to transition this time. That said, there are no guarantees,....... -Michael -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: February-14-12 2:32 AM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) Dear John, I understand the nature of the pure 'volunteer' nature of the IETF work very well. It comes in at least 2 flavors, the pure volunteer work that is funded by corporate interests and the pure volunteer work that is self funded by the volunteers. As a volunteer of the second flavor, I intend to work on the model for names (or the common model if there is such) and will at least comment on grammars. I have been working toward the requirements for a names model in the ICANN (or is this an organization "not to be named' in polite IETF company?) context and was happy to see that there was a possibility that the model work which is starting up now, though I am not yet involved, was moving to the IETF, a context I am comfortable with after many years - though I admit not in the applications area. As for why the future won't end up like the past. Can't say. I guess it has a lot to do with how people work together and whether there is animus between groups of participants. I think the current charter, in most of its versions initiates the process in a negative way and thus should be avoided. As I was not part of Crisp and have not gone back to study its archives, I really cant give more of an analysis that that. avri On 14 Feb 2012, at 07:53, John Levine wrote: >> I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two >> requirements on a par is rejected by the IESG. > > The IETF is an entirely volunteer organization. Which parts of the > extra work for names that you propose are you planning to work on? > > Also, as I presume you're aware, a group called CRISP tried to do a > complete name and numbers WHOIS replacement like you're suggesting, > and it completely failed. Do you think that doing the same thing > again would have a different result? If so, why? > > R's, > John > > PS: This question is directed at everyone who wants to do the whole > thing at once, not just at Avri. > _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From michael@mwyoung.ca Tue Feb 14 05:13:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A7A21F87C9 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:13:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.125 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiXeCfahzYqt for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DFB21F87BA for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so3353056ghb.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.11.200 with SMTP id s8mr34485324igb.10.1329225212370; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gw1sm19718897igb.0.2012.02.14.05.13.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:13:29 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Andrew Sullivan'" , References: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:13:24 -0500 Message-ID: <012b01cceb1a$6f5b1920$4e114b60$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHnKQsMFkW0JgsZbSTczyfU8XuXjwJqr2ySAuMXzuwBAnVDmJXVX5wg Content-Language: en-ca X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbc8JsR7e+4M5FjL+YSVoSwg/KnE8RJwA4c5Y5FK8Ulotcf/fxbq4qwB7lEilDbup/8Y31 Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:13:33 -0000 I was trying to get at this earlier, (but nowhere near as eloquently), = to decide this though, I think, would require some analysis of the two = use cases to see just how different things are,...... -M "Given the above, it is entirely possible that there would be so little = in common in a "single protocol" between these two types of repository = that all the real work would be done in the mappings. In that case, the = protocol would be much more complicated than it would need to be just = for the sake of saying we have one protocol. This is another reason to = consider working on only half the problem at once: if it turns out that = the number resoure registry support effectively demands things = incompatible with name registries -- even while we are thinking about = the needs of those name registries, and doing so in good faith -- then that means we do in fact need different systems. That might be = frustrating, but I often find that the world is not arranged in the way = I wish it were (for instance, I'm none of rich, beautiful, nor young). = I happen to believe that there's probably more in common there than this = worst-case suggestion implies, but I don't think we should prejudge this = matter. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" From dave.piscitello@icann.org Tue Feb 14 06:54:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B75121F8741 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:54:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XPCf+HLZTg69 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:54:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88F921F8738 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:54:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:54:00 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: John Levine Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:53:59 -0800 Thread-Topic: Who's committing to what? Thread-Index: AczrKHxlP7uvepMYTq2DISahud5gEw== Message-ID: References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: [weirds] Who's committing to what? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:54:02 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:53 AM, John Levine wrote: >> I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two re= quirements >> on a par is rejected by the IESG. >=20 > The IETF is an entirely volunteer organization. Which parts of the > extra work for names that you propose are you planning to work on? You have asked this several times, to several people. I've seen individual = commitments but that you ask repeatedly tells me that no one is keeping cou= nt or that the count does not meet some criteria. Perhaps we need a head count? Will that suffice? Here's a set of check boxes that could shed light on commitments? (My commi= tments are "X"'d) [ ] I will assist with developing experimental software for RESTful, name = resources [ ] I will assist with developing experimental software for RESTful, numbe= r resources [ X] I will assist with defining data profiles for RESTful, name resources [ ] I will assist with defining data profiles for RESTful, number resources [X ] I will participate in mailing list and review of experimental softwar= e for RESTful, name resources [ ] I will participate in mailing list and review of experimental software= for RESTful, number resources Do we need "X" for data framework? From vesely@tana.it Tue Feb 14 06:56:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F7021F87EB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:56:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xs9lgjlZzuqf for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E1821F87EA for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:56:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329231413; bh=zlMAGhp2jyFqBfV50id4iWS6YwHIWSlv24PMNH56af8=; l=3150; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GCMza2J/V15z7AM68QOEkDorf/r0G6If6y40zfgfAlp5x2emRNLNsbnFNzrmiyNnz 5+FsbqLaO6ZDYVsmq3pEWpG6CdqAhLeTtFGUEL+ObON8kXRAxv16KrA5MQsWZT4/wA sNjsA7zAzGPsV3KVB9uyoA8HOH7lR8EHUFIWAj3U= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:56:53 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004F3A7635.00006655 Message-ID: <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:56:52 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> In-Reply-To: <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [weirds] Separate data model, was New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:56:59 -0000 On 13/Feb/12 20:06, Andy Newton wrote: > On 02/13/2012 01:21 AM, Byron Ellacott wrote: >> On 11/02/2012, at 8:22 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> >>> On 10/Feb/12 19:42, Andy Newton wrote: >>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>>>> A separate glossary can be reused for many different protocols, >>>>> including bulk transfer or an explanation of the existing WHOIS. >>>> >>>> Of they can simply refer to this draft or RFCs this draft references. >>> >>> Hm... Why doesn't rir-json refer to the data described in RFC 4698? >> >> I'm not sure how useful the areg addressRangeType is 
 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd have quoted: The and share a common definition of 'ipNetworkType'. It has the following child elements: o contains the registry-unique assigned handle for this network. o contains a human-friendly name for the network. o contains the first IP address of the network. o contains the last IP address of the network. to be compared with: The following is a description of the members of this object: handle -- a string representing an RIR unique identifier of the network registration startAddress -- the starting IP address of the network endAddress -- the ending IP address of the network >> 
 given it doesn't specify the start or end in any greater detail >> than the rir-json-00 draft :-) >> >> I prefer to get feedback on what is not clear in the rir-json draft >> and clarify it there, and create a separate document if there >> becomes an obvious need for it. For most data types, I would expect >> to be referring to other RFCs for syntax, such as for email address, >> FQDN, or textual representation of an IP address. > > I agree with Byron. 4698 doesn't do a better job with these > elements... and that's coming from a person who has their name on 4698. It was rhetorical to ask you to reuse RFC 4698. However, I wish that the Nth time you rewrite those definition they /will/ be reusable ones. It is fine to clarify them in the rir-json draft and wait until the need for a separate document becomes obvious. (Anyway, I neither have the desire nor the authority to impose anything :-) I see APNIC publish object templates, which make for a language-neutral, easy description of the data model. ARIN's API reference, by contrast, expands more on the keys, and gives xml examples of the responses, suggesting they can be expressed equally well in json or text. In addition, semantics are extensively expanded in each RIR's policy manuals. Anonymity, mandatoriness of attributes, checks, data origin and maintainer, all deserve being mentioned, don't they? IMHO, we should choose the representation that can be compared to each of the five data models with the minimal effort. If we succeed, we can re-propose the same method for name registries. From ietf@meetecho.com Tue Feb 14 06:59:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DA921F87DD for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:59:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imgMlDUVxiVv for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtplq02.aruba.it (smtplqs-out12.aruba.it [62.149.158.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3435F21F87D2 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 31853 invoked by uid 89); 14 Feb 2012 14:59:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp6.aruba.it) (62.149.158.226) by smtplq02.aruba.it with SMTP; 14 Feb 2012 14:59:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1248 invoked by uid 89); 14 Feb 2012 14:59:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?143.225.229.199?) (ietf@meetecho.com@143.225.229.199) by smtp6.ad.aruba.it with SMTP; 14 Feb 2012 14:59:49 -0000 Message-ID: <4F3A76E5.90404@meetecho.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:59:49 +0100 From: Meetecho IETF support User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <4F394BE1.4090009@KingsMountain.com> <20120213215801.GN22144@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120213215801.GN22144@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: smtp6.ad.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: smtplq02.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N Subject: Re: [weirds] Jabber log X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:00:00 -0000 All, just to remember that there is also the Meetecho recording (audio/video + slides + jabber) of the whole BOF session available at: http://ietf82.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#WEIRDS Regards, the Meetecho team -- Meetecho s.r.l. Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools www.meetecho.com Il 13/02/2012 22:58, Andrew Sullivan ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:44:01AM -0800, =JeffH wrote: >> >> here they are on-list for convenience: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/weirds.txt > > I also found (thanks to the secretariat!) the jabber log from that > session: > http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/weirds@jabber.ietf.org/2011-11-16.html. > > Also, of course, people can listen to the audio archive. We were in > room 102 on 2011-11-16 at 09:00. That appears to be (and sounds to me > like) this file: > http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf82/ietf82-102-20111116-0855-am.mp3. > > The line at the mic opens at 54:00 according to the mp3 player I have > here, so if you want to skip over the presentations and hear what > people had to say, you can fast forward. John Klensin is the first > speaker once the mic line opens. > > Best, > > A > From michael@mwyoung.ca Tue Feb 14 07:06:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34AA21F87EF for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:06:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.431, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HzGWUhZCMl7n for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BD021F87B1 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so48876iag.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.157.196 with SMTP id e4mr14559013icx.3.1329231999180; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gw1sm20104306igb.0.2012.02.14.07.06.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:06:38 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Dave Piscitello'" , "'John Levine'" References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:06:32 -0500 Message-ID: <014e01cceb2a$3d917b40$b8b471c0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFBzplinv5ZHoPyHy19Irl81ZnpBgK21/fllzz92qA= Content-Language: en-ca X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFKdj9ibq6zdfpcwh9JrfWWczD1fBlua0oJ9xZ9JZMcRGUm5LoFY0WbAxv9bPwH53UIQm3 Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Who's committing to what? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:06:44 -0000 Dave I suggest the following more general, but useful additions, since I am leery we invent something that is not useable due not understanding the real world issues around adoption and use. I will assist by reviewing drafts submitted to the mailing list and offering corrections on errors or suggestions for improvement. I will assist by reviewing drafts submitted to the mailing list and offer comments based on knowledge of use cases and existing (or in development) policy that affect the use and/or adoption of this protocol. I will assist by reviewing drafts submitted to the mailing list and offer comments based on operational experience and expertise. I will assist by offering a test server and client implementation based on related IDs for others to access and experiment with. Best Regards, Michael Young M:+1-647-289-1220 -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello Sent: February-14-12 9:54 AM To: John Levine Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] Who's committing to what? On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:53 AM, John Levine wrote: >> I certainly hope that a charter that does not put the work of the two >> requirements on a par is rejected by the IESG. > > The IETF is an entirely volunteer organization. Which parts of the > extra work for names that you propose are you planning to work on? You have asked this several times, to several people. I've seen individual commitments but that you ask repeatedly tells me that no one is keeping count or that the count does not meet some criteria. Perhaps we need a head count? Will that suffice? Here's a set of check boxes that could shed light on commitments? (My commitments are "X"'d) [ ] I will assist with developing experimental software for RESTful, name resources [ ] I will assist with developing experimental software for RESTful, number resources [ X] I will assist with defining data profiles for RESTful, name resources [ ] I will assist with defining data profiles for RESTful, number resources [X ] I will participate in mailing list and review of experimental software for RESTful, name resources [ ] I will participate in mailing list and review of experimental software for RESTful, number resources Do we need "X" for data framework? _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Feb 14 07:30:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0FD21F87B3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Wwjr7GFqnVY for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D019C21F87A0 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98A1D1ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:30:16 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:30:20 -0000 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:44:09AM +0100, Peter Koch wrote: > thanks for this work. What is the next step, are we going to gauge > consensus on either of these? AFAICS, the next step is either (1) ADs step in and say, "We are not going to charter you for xyz because of XYZ," or (2) we have another BoF. Or, of course, (3) the effort to set up a WG fails. There seems to be a hard core of people extremely resistant to chartering with names on the deliverable list (and FWIW, I got the threat of an appeal from someone not active on this list, but who was in the BoF, last week, should the WG get chartered with names on the milestones). There seems also to be a hard core of people who think that any WG that is chartered without explicitly including names in the deliverables puts name-type problems at a disadvantage and is some sort of prejudice. I requested another BoF, with working out the charter the only agenda item. We'll see what the ADs say. In the meantime, I strongly advise those interested in names issues to show the prima facie evidence of progress and proto-consensus that is so obvious among number resource registry people. Running code is a very powerful argument against sceptics. I have on my list of projects at Dyn Labs an experimental names system. The problem in my case is that Dyn is only a registrar. In the absence of some registry for which Dyn is accredited actually offering the service too, it will be pretty hard for me to show anything like a useful service. (Indeed, this is precisely one of the arguments in favour of starting with numbers: it's not an impossible effort to get started.) Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From carlosm3011@gmail.com Tue Feb 14 07:32:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A4921F87B1 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HMAdwkDexXMq for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF2521F87A1 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so63107ghb.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2t6VUc0jDNyJBknx6JtUtS6ZbeJ/qbkEICvPLVZCkF4=; b=TLRMUKJXK97g7pYJzu9xorHGlVmQa9BRGrZs0SjWVcfbcxnMR5Gdjj1txeo0jadyF9 qqCCrZdLfzZsiND1tzK1mnetSJxIFMcZpxVrDIfZ19kl7qY5dlFvR7mLOf6ywQ10jMzY 4KnqxtwSVXss+mkbAcq4+pGQYk/NOS0+3gnic= Received: by 10.236.80.39 with SMTP id j27mr27172085yhe.92.1329233527188; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n35sm30205770yhh.19.2012.02.14.07.32.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3A7E72.9050200@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:32:02 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [weirds] Redirections (was Re: Proposed charters) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:08 -0000 One topic that I do not find in the proposed charters' text is the topic of redirections (a la 'Joint WHOIS'). Should it be in scope? In my personal opinion, yes, it should be. We (LACNIC) have some draft text and a working prototype of a redirection service already working. The text received positive reviews from those from other RIRs who looked at it and we plan to present it to WEIRDS once it has a more presentable form. If anyone wants to take a look at its current form, please let us know. regards Carlos On 2/14/12 6:44 AM, Peter Koch wrote: > Andrew, > >> As far as I know, the attached represent all the competing charter >> versions that have recently been posted. I modified the text I >> proposed with the most recent suggestions, I think. Files are named >> with the initals of the person who proposed. > thanks for this work. What is the next step, are we going to gauge > consensus on either of these? > > -Peter > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@hxr.us Tue Feb 14 07:43:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E7921F8591 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KNde5NusjWb for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0167421F84FD for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsq5 with SMTP id q5so62315qcs.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.78.134 with SMTP id l6mr12409222qck.55.1329234189491; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from andytop.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm8sm3996088qab.18.2012.02.14.07.43.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:08 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <4F3A7E72.9050200@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:43:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <78FCFB3C-A082-44DA-9E1B-CCF6ABC28FDA@hxr.us> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <4F3A7E72.9050200@gmail.com> To: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQfk/qAknDXNAD5v56TboLSRDoHy1CbuHlm1NWW6fzEetuhnZop/uE+x1xmJZQOAg7BfZE Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Redirections (was Re: Proposed charters) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:43:10 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > Should it be in scope? In my personal opinion, yes, it should be. Yes. -andy From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Feb 14 07:50:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4B621F872B for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:50:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hbciIVcG84qA for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62DE21F8729 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F40B91ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:50:53 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214155052.GT22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <4F3A7E72.9050200@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F3A7E72.9050200@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Redirections (was Re: Proposed charters) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:50:57 -0000 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:32:02PM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > One topic that I do not find in the proposed charters' text is the > topic of redirections (a la 'Joint WHOIS'). RFC 3707 is included by reference at least in all the text I've sent. That RFC includes this text: 4.2. Referrals To distribute queries for search continuations and to issue entity references, the protocol MUST provide a referral mechanism. 4.3. Common Referral Mechanism To distribute queries for search continuations and to issue entity references, the protocol MUST define a common referral scheme and syntax. So I think that redirections or referrals are in fact already included. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From andy@hxr.us Tue Feb 14 07:51:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73CCC21F87AB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.417, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqUwN5fCPjl6 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6BA21F87A3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so346469qan.10 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.106.23 with SMTP id v23mr12425851qco.52.1329234664407; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from andytop.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gw4sm4054212qab.13.2012.02.14.07.51.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:03 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:50:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> To: Alessandro Vesely X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmlGCuYfX+yZg+bsd8lsVo+T6PDTkDtwkQa6rAT8Jd05tU7Rvsq468ks7RyzRUoNGYJQLr+ Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Separate data model, was New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:51:05 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > It was rhetorical to ask you to reuse RFC 4698. However, I wish that > the Nth time you rewrite those definition they /will/ be reusable > ones. =20 Yes, I suck at trying to explain things *I think* are obvious. I am not = disputing that point. :) > It is fine to clarify them in the rir-json draft and wait until > the need for a separate document becomes obvious. (Anyway, I neither > have the desire nor the authority to impose anything :-) But you do have the power to provide text you feel makes the = specification more readable and understandable. That is likely a greater = power. You offer a reasonable compromise: put it in to rir-json until their is = a need for a separate document. That works for me. Thank you. -andy= From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 14 08:27:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8136421F86F4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:27:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.025 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z03oH-oomMZB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C57E21F86F2 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:27:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 92597 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2012 16:27:20 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2012 16:27:20 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3a8b68.xn--hew.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=0cIZKdtOKnp4BdhhSRNpkFZA1De4hRTFZuc732gzOG4=; b=VEn2yGxNX60Zr7RU0q4PA5mpArbnQtufYpBFiT2sBmEmOG1T252JP7cMd6xKIKNx2wjV+PWbmhcC7+K7BOMW4TXf4l8LfAdiuMqKEBK0o9i0CqAgYCTMv8t1dsBBSJS79nGo2Lowg7vUQ1LR1WM3ER2QAfNLz9Okr1y6MDe5TVM= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 14 Feb 2012 16:26:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20120214162657.23144.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <012a01cceb19$9ddfa050$d99ee0f0$@mwyoung.ca> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:27:25 -0000 > I'm confused, maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't seem right to call >out one person's intended effort unless we plan to ask everyone to make >equal declarations - then it's fair game. Yes, of course. If Avri is offering to do work, that's OK. I still think it would be an extremely bad idea to try to do a full WHOIS replacement at once, and I have heard no arguments beyond "something bad might happen" why it wouldn't be a better idea to address the more tractable number problem first. It can't be that it makes any difference whether we look at names now or a year from now. If there were an actual hurry, the people who have been telling us how urgent it is to do a replacement for name whois would be working on it already. R's, John From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Feb 14 08:27:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153E121E804D for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:27:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eCT850Bj-Hr4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9867B21E8021 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CF2E1ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:27:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:27:37 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214162737.GU22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Separate data model, was New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:27:50 -0000 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:50:58AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: > You offer a reasonable compromise: put it in to rir-json until their is a need for a separate document. That works for me. Thank you. > Warning! Process wonkery ahead. Does this mean that the separate milestone in some versions of the proposed charter could go away? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From sm@resistor.net Tue Feb 14 08:38:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ED721F86B9 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:38:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mz7CXSZwdOve for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA87721F86B6 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:38:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1EGc9O5003782 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:38:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329237493; i=@resistor.net; bh=MM3XfuFVXL9R+FRDxHDLox0lSTLodutyMHpTugYvlkY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=CqC85qEDrh2MGEj88ezckM5v5W1O/UlDQ31Ns010u+3l/JZEOEiIBoto7XmurEuKx ZX8lfs3kFY/HRsOx4U/2aYUAX/MBy0sPdeqsP6Bug0vLUJEyk99epWqX9D79ZEx9JF ywisN8j6Xf/sJJifI3dEfEEOjBQugwzLAwAMYdww= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329237493; i=@resistor.net; bh=MM3XfuFVXL9R+FRDxHDLox0lSTLodutyMHpTugYvlkY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=MTJyNWItEbMVGBtN50xz+1d7ChLs9T/l0/fCsSgxH4Xj0JFe1ou3VGOwAhyOpNCGG 2raBtZM53v2P2gE6IVy2Xjm/56Z3cNK3P9PiWd6KXNjzSv0lNvF82naL1yMSHJoYeJ mWjQ6Jp2Fwpt9OS9uOVfKHXEa834N93sFCjKpdl8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120214075651.0afc0c08@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:23:45 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:38:28 -0000 At 07:30 14-02-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >AFAICS, the next step is either (1) ADs step in and say, "We are not >going to charter you for xyz because of XYZ," or (2) we have another >BoF. Or, of course, (3) the effort to set up a WG fails. It sounds like a stalemate. >There seems to be a hard core of people extremely resistant to >chartering with names on the deliverable list (and FWIW, I got the >threat of an appeal from someone not active on this list, but who was >in the BoF, last week, should the WG get chartered with names on the >milestones). There seems also to be a hard core of people who think >that any WG that is chartered without explicitly including names in >the deliverables puts name-type problems at a disadvantage and is some >sort of prejudice. The less controversial part of the work might be the object specifications. The proposed charter could have these two initial deliverables only: Draft WEIRDS object specifications for number resource registries to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC. Draft WEIRDS object specifications for name registries to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC. If the future working group can deliver the above, it should be easier to work on a protocol. The above buys everyone a working group and allows anyone to express their discontent. Regards, -sm From dave.piscitello@icann.org Tue Feb 14 08:48:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333D521F8540 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:48:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ooFSoE6LN-kt for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0329B21F8722 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:48:37 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andrew Sullivan Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:48:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Proposed charters Thread-Index: AczrOH8zyEjh4wC8RDK3fT+w7yBhGw== Message-ID: <20504122-5BF5-415D-83EA-324668F25C63@icann.org> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:48:42 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > There seems to be a hard core of people extremely resistant to > chartering with names on the deliverable list I'd like a head count. > (and FWIW, I got the > threat of an appeal from someone not active on this list, but who was > in the BoF, last week, should the WG get chartered with names on the > milestones). =20 I'm sorry. I don't understand how this is relevant or appropriate.=20 How exactly do you threaten volunteers and with what?=20 And why is a volunteer making threats instead of engaging on the list? Isn't the process supposed to be open?=20 > There seems also to be a hard core of people who think > that any WG that is chartered without explicitly including names in > the deliverables puts name-type problems at a disadvantage and is some > sort of prejudice. Again, a head count.=20 > I requested another BoF, with working out the charter the only agenda > item. We'll see what the ADs say. In the meantime, I strongly advise > those interested in names issues to show the prima facie evidence of > progress and proto-consensus that is so obvious among number resource > registry people. Running code is a very powerful argument against > sceptics. Fine.=20 We now have a second experiment under development for a registry that ICANN= operates.=20 We need a few tweeks to make it ready for public consumption (uses an overl= y trivial data model, for example). That makes 2 ICANN implementations, one commitment from Gavin Brown, anothe= r from Michael Young. Is four experiments sufficient prima facie evidence of progress? Other registries have indicated they will contribute: from various posts on= this list I find some indication of suport from UK, CNNIC, and Afilias). F= rom Franciso's email of 3 February I find this assertion: "However, after Taipei a number of entities, e.g., Afilias, AusRegistry, CNNIC, ICANN, ISC, Nominet, .MX, Verisign, etc. have expressed their interest in developing the name registries part." There is "proto consensus" that the work is desirable and there is a commit= ment to make public a data profile for name resources from ICANN's SSAC.=20 Please advise. =20 > I have on my list of projects at Dyn Labs an experimental names > system. The problem in my case is that Dyn is only a registrar. In > the absence of some registry for which Dyn is accredited actually > offering the service too, it will be pretty hard for me to show > anything like a useful service. =20 Dyn Labs or IMO generally any registrar could in fact operate a web/curl se= rvice as an experimental proxy: - - accept RESTful queries - - transform these into "plain text" queries - - query the target TLD - - normalize TLD responses into the name resource data profile - - return the normalized data Such implementations would allow end users to participate on the consumptio= n end. This would be very useful for heavy users of Whois, who may want to = plan/design automation. Companies that have a large exposure to phishing/sp= am, online brand protection companies, antispam/anticrime/antiabuse groups = may all find this kind of effort beneficial. So I think your implementation would add value. > (Indeed, this is precisely one of the > arguments in favour of starting with numbers: it's not an impossible > effort to get started.) I think you miss an important point. The existence of contractual obligatio= ns. These play a role in real world scenarios other than domain registries = and registrars as well. These affect deployment commitments but they also m= ake it important that there is considerable stability in what is proposed i= n a contract. Lead time is an important impetus to define the name resource= s part of this work as soon as possible. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPOpBkAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNPTwIAJtfNdzFxkefT3r7mRsGtBxn y6eDmH9lfZ7eTJ1WRYXaGyvBeelnokWZj7E62Nuj0BynNkx13HsUd6tLUW7mRoSm T6rj2bI98Vs4PAKS+zoSiaUcNL8bLlirpeNIvEi0iufXaAhTSvxEs74NhOHk73Cx 1oO1TfTHkszHjhEPunKBILRuRMQrLmjJoL4zIXFnw+BTaCZLRatudwkJ/nBFq6Me tgDnHrQiGyLDhDiU4rqjusovLCKpPlqvCKppKvI7Cg4wqFIz44LX16aXEbYJshGG DFW36T9g0g54ThKsKe3JhEVFuJJi8HP4yes+tmmmg/WWnWMdG1RMMkBehwd/ftA=3D =3DX2gj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 14 08:49:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E7721F86FE for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:49:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.076 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T2P27u44ldXL for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:49:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D3521E804F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:49:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5300 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2012 16:49:06 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2012 16:49:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3a9082.xn--yuvv84g.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=PlGLbW227nPsmXQZyGr0YxN1v1JY9J6XsdUrHW07RKk=; b=rZdyLyAGrQsTHSiRaa4BWXCdPOn9aVpLD/5EXoEK7fd0CBaKb4O0r2p6til7ZodDOxwFm5xcTwGjULUPWzh1HuAlZk8Vj8G3QDaSBmFkXiaHIHyoLfVbqbaspshu5PC1v1h9jSVSBr86Hz7EUdcvIkVS5Sw8DIRNMys2F/d4UuA= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 14 Feb 2012 16:48:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20120214164844.23881.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4F3A7E72.9050200@gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Redirections (was Re: Proposed charters) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:49:14 -0000 >One topic that I do not find in the proposed charters' text is the topic >of redirections (a la 'Joint WHOIS'). > >Should it be in scope? In my personal opinion, yes, it should be. Yes, definitely. Having written and used my share of WHOIS scrapers, I've observed one of the few things that just about all WHOIS servers have in common is a response saying go ask that other server for the answer. This doesn't need to be in the charter, just something we keep in mind. R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Feb 14 09:09:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFC821F87A1 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amEk+J6sP0PD for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CC721F8764 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:09:45 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:09:45 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:09:43 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Who's committing to what? Thread-Index: AQFBzplinv5ZHoPyHy19Irl81ZnpBgK21/fllzz92qCAACTQkA== Message-ID: References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> <014e01cceb2a$3d917b40$b8b471c0$@mwyoung.ca> In-Reply-To: <014e01cceb2a$3d917b40$b8b471c0$@mwyoung.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Who's committing to what? X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:09:46 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Michael Young > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:07 AM > To: 'Dave Piscitello'; 'John Levine' > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Who's committing to what? >=20 > Dave I suggest the following more general, but useful additions, since > I am leery we invent something that is not useable due not > understanding the real world issues around adoption and use. I prefer this set if we're going to actually track commitments. Dave's set= , while a good idea, captures exactly the kind of partitioning of work that= the name proponents are trying to prevent. -MSK From vesely@tana.it Tue Feb 14 09:18:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BED21F847E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:18:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0zLkxGEaOTc for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D98121F852B for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:18:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329239918; bh=NRk5e9bQwoH1kHVlHEcGfFy55QGGMzVi8+6my3fvVyo=; l=680; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ibv5jwwSZJ8nD4SB9cCC9/hJP/sGzkNLVOogfI9rh0RxtJMvJZAS0d2NJPjigmlpD 4AfLBXHrPd/8KJEsJC/pGjTzIu6XBRpJsvpkMS26JcvhMw98lsYds5H67+xbAO3f4p 1s9+9EhH+o9ABib+EtB1z3vREbEFLIuaWVY183mw= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:18:38 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004F3A976E.00000B04 Message-ID: <4F3A976E.7010109@tana.it> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:18:38 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> <20120214162737.GU22144@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120214162737.GU22144@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Separate data model, was New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:18:47 -0000 On 14/Feb/12 17:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:50:58AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: >> You offer a reasonable compromise: put it in to rir-json until >> their is a need for a separate document. That works for me. Thank >> you. > > Warning! Process wonkery ahead. > > Does this mean that the separate milestone in some versions of the > proposed charter could go away? I don't think so. An I-D is an I-D, whether separated or not. If the need to separate it will not have arisen by WGLC time, a mutilated de-jsonized copy of it can be built trivially, and kept among the WG's documents as a mascot... I'll volunteer for that editing, in case. From francisco.arias@icann.org Tue Feb 14 09:47:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFAB21E8051 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:47:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlj90h273HwQ for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC221E8029 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:47:16 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:47:13 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) Thread-Index: AczrQLCGnPcgAbaDTa+Sl0rEMCmGBg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:47:17 -0000 On 2/14/12 4:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >One of the things I'm finding troubling about this discussion is the >repeated claim that it is obviously better to have one protocol for >accessing the registration data for number resources and for names, >that we need one application for this, and so on. As nearly as I can >tell, the only premise in support of that conclusion is that it's the >way things are now: we have whois, therefore we need to "replace >whois", and that means a new system that does everything whois does, >only without all the crummy bits. The way I imagine things and it seems is the way the charter is depicting them is we would have a general base protocol, seemingly agnostic of the data that is traversing over it. Complemented by data profiles for each type of registry interested on using the protocol (e.g., number and names). However, the base protocol may need to define operations/commands (e.g., search, lookup) and other general features (e.g., internationalization, standard errors, referrals) that if designed without taking into consideration the two type of registries that had expressed interest in the protocol, we may end up with such a protocol that is unsuitable for some specific need of one of these type of registries. That's why I believe it is important to keep in scope the discussion of both number and name registries while designing the base protocol. If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the data profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or RIRs/NIRs vs hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data profile come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the base protocol has to include both name and number registries. Regards, __ Francisco. From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Feb 14 09:48:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC1C21F86A4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:48:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VWguMi6oUhBL for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A243421F8492 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BA1A1ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:48:11 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214174810.GV22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> <20504122-5BF5-415D-83EA-324668F25C63@icann.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20504122-5BF5-415D-83EA-324668F25C63@icann.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:48:22 -0000 Dave, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:48:31AM -0800, Dave Piscitello wrote: > > There seems to be a hard core of people extremely resistant to > > chartering with names on the deliverable list > > I'd like a head count. Then count. I'm not in charge here. And anyway, I don't see what a count is supposed to do. The way one gets a WG chartered at the IETF is to hold a BoF. In the BoF we heard a lot of resistance to names work right away. The reason for that is something you touch on, so I'll address it below. > I think you miss an important point. The existence of contractual > obligations. These play a role in real world scenarios other than > domain registries and registrars as well. These affect deployment > commitments but they also make it important that there is > considerable stability in what is proposed in a contract. Lead time > is an important impetus to define the name resources part of this > work as soon as possible. Nobody is missing this point; on the contrary, this is _exactly_ why some people are sceptical that the names problem is going to get any traction. The existing contractual obligations are for Whois. Replacing Whois is a non-zero cost, and Whois service is all cost and no revenue anyway. If you listen to Klensin's complaints in the BoF (the link I posted yesterday), that's what he's saying: ICANN simply cannot mandate this change on its own, it doesn't have the power to force others to do anything, and history suggests that it may not be able to broker the compromise. The approach you are talking about is, basically, "Build it and they will come." The problem is that the IETF did that with IRIS, and with RWhois, and maybe even with Whois++. "Crickets." An incremental approach that tackles the easy problems, with fewer contractual entanglements, first, while providing a way to make progress on those harder problems at the same time if the people needed to make that progress actually do the work, looks to many like the easier path. Let's think about this another way. We know from history that when some registries were faced with levels of "domain tasting" that were important enough to them, they thought of some mitigation strategies to those problems first, built the necessary SRS parts, and then turned to ICANN with those developments in hand and asked for the necessary contractual changes to permit the new mechanisms. What ICANN actually permitted in the end was slightly different than the initial proposals, but a key fact here is that there was already technical work in hand when the contractual negotiations started. Today, we are looking at the same pattern in number resource registries: those registries have developed alternatives to Whois, and they're now working together to nail down the details of a common approach. We see no such actual work from any registry but ICANN, and ICANN's Whois is by far the least interesting name registry on the Internet for at least some purposes. (For instance, whatever the paranoia, no real phishing scam is going to spend a quarter million dollars to get their domain in the root.) John Levine has already pointed this out: if ditching Whois were so important to the people who are saying they _plan_ to do work, they'd be doing work already. In the absence of such work, there's no reason to suppose that the Whois issue is anything more than a nice to have, and in the DNS registry business "nice to have" never gets built. That's the source of resistance. I want to emphasise that I don't have a strong opinion about this. I don't care if we put name registries on the charter. I simply think that the arguments the sceptics have are strong ones, and ones that the IESG is going to take seriously. If we're going to make progress, I think incrememtalism is the answer. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From carlosm3011@gmail.com Tue Feb 14 10:03:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589AB21E807E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3sX0d4LU28iu for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C2C21E8027 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnq2 with SMTP id q2so207763ggn.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wUCdS8sFuiUt5rJmIJBeehp7OwmiY0qKnG45b+vqsgE=; b=VoX9quB0d977oQdqFcSo4RJcbert+reJx2Zx8gpnKY/rFCIKX1X0jbZAx4lQqEyxIa TM4C6WfoEzuu8GGK9b3J1xjor986S9N4ww6KpGya34je4VVU4hoHZPCH9A4IxYFqihRr yoB/pW+YQclkxa7vTEEJQHVZ4gUAHCLQI0mkQ= Received: by 10.236.185.97 with SMTP id t61mr27792723yhm.100.1329242621954; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y12sm239773ang.21.2012.02.14.10.03.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3AA1F7.8000109@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:03:35 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Arias References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:03:43 -0000 I agree with you Francisco, and again I don't believe anyone here wants to kick name registries out. However, it's a fact that the name registry problem is more complex both technically and policy-wise, and thus it makes sense to focus in the easy problem first (which doesn't mean forgetting or kicking out the other crowd) I think we can produce a good generic API for accessing registries, an API which maybe will even find uses outside the WHOIS problem domain. The key will be to introduce extensibility everywhere, from the data model to the error condition signaling and everything in between. Looking forward to work with you all, Carlos On 2/14/12 3:47 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > On 2/14/12 4:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: > > >> One of the things I'm finding troubling about this discussion is the >> repeated claim that it is obviously better to have one protocol for >> accessing the registration data for number resources and for names, >> that we need one application for this, and so on. As nearly as I can >> tell, the only premise in support of that conclusion is that it's the >> way things are now: we have whois, therefore we need to "replace >> whois", and that means a new system that does everything whois does, >> only without all the crummy bits. > The way I imagine things and it seems is the way the charter is depicting > them is we would have a general base protocol, seemingly agnostic of the > data that is traversing over it. Complemented by data profiles for each > type of registry interested on using the protocol (e.g., number and names). > > However, the base protocol may need to define operations/commands (e.g., > search, lookup) and other general features (e.g., internationalization, > standard errors, referrals) that if designed without taking into > consideration the two type of registries that had expressed interest in > the protocol, we may end up with such a protocol that is unsuitable for > some specific need of one of these type of registries. > > That's why I believe it is important to keep in scope the discussion of > both number and name registries while designing the base protocol. > > If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the data > profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or RIRs/NIRs vs > hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data profile > come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the base > protocol has to include both name and number registries. > > Regards, > > __ > > Francisco. > > > > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From fobispo@isc.org Tue Feb 14 10:04:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F5221E8027 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:04:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yaEnd8Qsktdk for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4991D21E8099 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEEB0C9476; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:03:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97B30216C6B; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:03:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:03:53 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> References: To: Francisco Arias X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:04:05 -0000 I agree with this statement,=20 The de-coupling of the discussion from the base protocol from data = representation, should allow us to move quickly into proposals for the = latter. Francisco On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Francisco Arias wrote: > If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the = data > profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or = RIRs/NIRs vs > hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data profile > come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the base > protocol has to include both name and number registries. >=20 > Regards, From carlosm3011@gmail.com Tue Feb 14 10:06:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B9F21E80A3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:06:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkzncO-yXmje for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C0A21E8092 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so213637ghb.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:05:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3GsCznTPCT7Q1ebuJn0FOPq0YfmH3iUzi97PAj2abWc=; b=HL4+MMKKfvw7jEEwRHqQSu2LXzVOEx7TAAJcrlN6RXi9ZNLUH6PEAVim/d1Hskzkvb kZh7kWpFFkX6zG12mJuMUi8dG7oAYg70E89HiKRSVtZBthU6WtY1HQP6jvgoC9qTBEVO pJcSCzd1u3nGkC8B4EPoyVd608FPsiCy0oJ5U= Received: by 10.236.80.74 with SMTP id j50mr28970661yhe.2.1329242759726; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i12sm308580anm.6.2012.02.14.10.05.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:05:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3AA282.1020303@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:05:54 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Obispo References: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:06:01 -0000 +1 On 2/14/12 4:03 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > I agree with this statement, > > The de-coupling of the discussion from the base protocol from data representation, should allow us to move quickly into proposals for the latter. > > Francisco > > > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Francisco Arias wrote: > >> If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the data >> profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or RIRs/NIRs vs >> hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data profile >> come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the base >> protocol has to include both name and number registries. >> >> Regards, > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Feb 14 10:09:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E52D21F86E3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:09:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1A8uXAqRUi0G for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA79621F86DC for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:09:10 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:09:10 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:09:09 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Proposed charters Thread-Index: AczrQNnHVkS7jZlUSQ2QLoRGDyAVQwAATIkg Message-ID: References: <20120213152616.GB22144@mail.yitter.info> <20120214084409.GD1201@x27.adm.denic.de> <20120214153016.GS22144@mail.yitter.info> <20504122-5BF5-415D-83EA-324668F25C63@icann.org> <20120214174810.GV22144@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120214174810.GV22144@mail.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:09:11 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:48 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters >=20 > I want to emphasise that I don't have a strong opinion about this. I > don't care if we put name registries on the charter. I simply think > that the arguments the sceptics have are strong ones, and ones that the > IESG is going to take seriously. If we're going to make progress, I > think incrememtalism is the answer. Not only do I agree, but I would try (have tried) to assuage fears of the n= ame proponents by saying the work of the number proponents is already clear= ly well-developed. That means a working group chartered to do number work = is in a position to complete that initial charter relatively quickly, even = keeping extensibility in mind, and could then recharter to do name work and= hit the ground running. The delay the name proponents fear could well be = not worthy of concern in the grand scheme of things, and the fairly strong = assertion that the two be separated is thus satisfied. I think it's unfortunate that we're put in a position to marshal the sentim= ent of resistance on behalf of those ardently opposed to developing the two= together, as they are not participating on this list. I'm sure that indir= ection isn't helping us here either. That is, the discussion here doesn't = include the people that were very vocal in Taipei, who could perhaps do mor= e justice to their arguments than are those of us who were there. I wonder how that goes toward measuring consensus... -MSK From fobispo@isc.org Tue Feb 14 10:12:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3194821F8735 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:11:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5pzCBjYOh0n for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:11:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E26D21F870A for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:11:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22FCAC9476; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:11:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A99C216C6B; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:11:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:11:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> To: Francisco Arias X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:12:15 -0000 With the Launch of new GTLDs, and the creation of potentially several = hundreds of new registries, each one of them will try to implement their = own interface, this is due to the fact, that ICANN will award you with = an extra point if you provide a searchable interface. Having a proposed format, in place in 2012 is critical to avoid this = situation during launch in 2013.=20 On the other hand, RIRs, are only 5 and _should_ be easier to sit down = on a table on a working session and get things done. I would encourage to have both working groups in parallel, I believe = there is enough people already interested to be able to do that. Francisco=20 On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > I agree with this statement,=20 >=20 > The de-coupling of the discussion from the base protocol from data = representation, should allow us to move quickly into proposals for the = latter. >=20 > Francisco >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Francisco Arias wrote: >=20 >> If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the = data >> profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or = RIRs/NIRs vs >> hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data = profile >> come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the base >> protocol has to include both name and number registries. >>=20 >> Regards, >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From presnick@qualcomm.com Tue Feb 14 10:19:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3904F21F87DE for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:19:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSPrVFoBoWdu for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:19:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E846A21F87DB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:19:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1329243561; x=1360779561; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Tu e,=2014=20Feb=202012=2012:19:18=20-0600|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Dave=20Piscitello=20|CC:=20"Murray=20S.=20Kucherawy"=20,=20"weirds@ietf.org"=0D=0A=09|Subject:=20Re:=20[weirds]=20New=20new=20proposed=20c harter=20text|References:=20<20120209154706.36620.qmail@j oyce.lan>=09=09<387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org>=09 <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net>=09=09<9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.o rg>=09=09=09=20|In-Reply-To:=20|Content-Type:=20text/pla in=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[1 72.30.39.5]; bh=iGxGaX1ZeQ2p0DAjCUhNrpDcPEKI0tpSL4cfSpItlI0=; b=cjfs2Oo/Pk11leRyKktL8q0JWyf4IGNaW1QMxnmyII5uzYVGlmVhyTel Swd/eLXbeQkMQdkduzWKUq0++w01QBxHmSNiaU16fGLKGHGtez1J4A3OB qZkR1PLq2EjlQXMWqSt0zF/4BD/qFTR+JozZFtp2uomtwzGTwA1ln8aPE 8=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6620"; a="163100516" Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 10:19:21 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="157506754" Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Feb 2012 10:19:21 -0800 Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:19:20 -0800 Message-ID: <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:19:18 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Piscitello References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:19:36 -0000 Greetings, I am Eeyore, your fearless^h^h^h^hful AD. Every time I think I've finally caught up on all of the email, some more messages appear. However, I think I've gotten ahead of the curve and I thought it high time to explain my thoughts. First, let me say that I'm willing to take to the IESG anything that you all have convinced me is a workable plan, and I'm absolutely open to being convinced. Of course, there is always the possibility that if you don't convince me, you can go convince another AD to take the charter to the IESG. But if I'm not convinced that the charter has a good likelihood of success, I suspect other members of the IESG won't be convinced either. So let me lay out my concerns so that you can decide what "convincing" you want to do. From my perspective, I see some folks from (a large percentage of) number registries willing to work on the protocol docs *and* write some code while working on those docs (in fact, some code and docs have already been written) for what I see as a relatively constrained problem space. That seems like a perfect recipe for success. I also see a small bunch of motivated names registry folks, a couple of which are willing to write some code, and most of which are willing to write some docs, on what it seems to me is a much thornier problem space. There is no doubt in my mind that being able to use the same (or a similar) protocol for access to both kinds of data is a good thing. But what I don't want to do is set up a whole lot of fate sharing between what I see as two separable efforts. I would like to see name registry issues kept in mind as we develop protocol, but I don't want an attempt to get a number registry protocol nailed down to be derailed by difficult name registry issues. I want the number registry work to sink or swim by itself. If there are straightforward ways to keep the protocol for number registries useful for name registries, we should do so. Insofar as issues get contentious, we should put them aside and leave them for later. And that last bit is important: I absolutely foresee this WG doing work on the names registry protocol. I think once the WG gets a stake in the ground with the number registry work, we should add charter items to get the names registry work done. What worries me is having charter items that spell out the names registry work from the get go. I would rather the WG stay focused on the numbers work first before starting the names work in earnest. And to be frank, if we can't complete the numbers work, I can't imagine the names work is going to complete. If we can complete the numbers work, that leaves us free to build on it to get the names work done. What I haven't been convinced of is that doing the work as distinct units and sequentially will be harmful to the names work. Yes, *if* the group wants to reuse the same protocols and *if* a bunch of stuff required for the names work needed to be left out of the protocol in order to get the numbers work done in a reasonable timeframe, it *might* mean that re-jiggering the protocol to support the names work might take longer than it would have if we undertook to do both things together. But that doesn't see like it would be so terrible. And we may find that the names protocol should be different than the numbers protocol. Or we may find that, even though we concentrated on numbers first, we were smart enough (and took enough input from the names folks) to leave things extensible enough to accommodate the names work handily. Either way, it seems better to wait until some of the numbers work is done before deciding those issues. What I don't want to have happen is put the names and numbers work in a death grip such that if there is contention with one, it affects the other. Re-chartering to add work will be easier once we have a good track record. Initial chartering with a larger set of work items is harder. So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something that is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear why the proposed work is necessary to do now and can't be done sequentially, and especially the risk to the names work if it is not done concurrently. pr On 2/10/12 8:14 PM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > Again, thanks for your clarifications, personal assurances, and candor. > > I'll wait to hear from the AD regarding re-chartering. > > > On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org] >>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:35 PM >>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy >>> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >>> >>> >>>>> What is the purpose of two charters that divide work arbitrarily when >>>>> at least one of the stated objectives is to have a common framework? >>>>> >>> Can you comment on this question? >>> >> I did, in the message to which you just replied. I said: >> >> "What happened in Taipei was resounding resistance to doing both names and numbers work, and some resistance to doing this work at all. I think what we have in the proposed charter Andrew did is a compromise between that fairly firm position and the feelings of the community to which you're referring." >> >> That's the purpose of the division. I do not agree that it is arbitrary; I believe it is an appropriate choice. >> >> >>> Let me ask whether you think the charter as written accommodates the >>> following or whether these specific requests could be accommodated: >>> >>> 1) Consideration for selectors appropriate for internationalized >>> registration data will accommodate both number and name resource needs. >>> Specifically, the charter will assure that we won't have to re-visit >>> this issue and that we won't have two. >>> >> In my view, the 20120209a charter does all of that except for "assure". >> >> If indeed all of the name proponents do come to the table early on in this working group and stay there, the assurance comes from their presence and persistence, and not from the charter. I think that's as good, or possibly even better. >> >> >>> 2) Should a data profile for name resources be prepared and submitted >>> in the same time frame as a number resource data profile, it won't be >>> set aside while/until the number data profile is considered. >>> >> The charter does not require it to be set aside, nor do I think the 20120209a charter text could be effectively wielded as a tool to force that work to slow down or stop unless one could demonstrate that it is interfering with the numbers work. So again, if cautious but deliberate momentum from name proponents is there, I suspect the work will stick. >> >> >>> 3) Should a data profile be prepared, the WG would add it to the set of >>> deliverables. >>> >> That would require a re-chartering. I'm told that's typically a lightweight process. I don't know that it would be so lightweight in this case given the history, but if the working group very clearly has the momentum to add it without detriment to its existing deliverables, I can't imagine there would be any legitimate resistance. >> >> It might be good if our sponsoring AD commented at this point. >> >> >>> What I honestly fear from all the pushback is that the name resources >>> efforts will meet persistent resistance, perhaps not from you or others >>> who are interested in the broader end game, but from others. I'd rather >>> you tell me now that I'm tilting windmills than go through again what I >>> experienced with IPng... >>> >> I can only give you my own assurances based on my intent and experience. I can't predict what others will do. >> >> -MSK >> -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 From aservin@lacnic.net Tue Feb 14 10:24:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB24B21F86AB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:24:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxwNunzWygtY for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E6D21F866D for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:dc91:2cc2:bc1d:e8e4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:dc91:2cc2:bc1d:e8e4]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23492308427; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:23:44 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E8FC348-5591-41AB-BAE2-EFFB2A91DBC5" From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:23:43 -0200 Message-Id: References: <20120209014217.GA14907@mail.yitter.info> <20120209015644.6243.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120209134125.GC15455@crankycanuck.ca> <20120209145410.GD15455@mail.yitter.info> <47B348F1-5A5C-44DA-8C0A-818586E684A6@hxr.us> <4F35540E.1050503@tana.it> <388AB60F-81E4-4A3F-BB7C-A50C56498486@arin.net> <4F364152.3070601@tana.it> <2ADF0D9B-D9BD-486D-826B-2CCD955800A7@apnic.net> <4F395F1C.7030208@arin.net> <4F3A7634.4060803@tana.it> To: Alessandro Vesely X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Separate data model, was New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:24:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2E8FC348-5591-41AB-BAE2-EFFB2A91DBC5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Alessandro, We tried to precisely to that. We studied and compared the 5 = different data models trying to find some common data-structures before = writing the draft rir-json Not sure if we will succeed, I am confident that we could do a = nice work. There are many differences in syntax although the semantics = are very similar (not always identical, but similar). I guess doing the same for name-registries would be hard as well = but not impossible and I think it would be the way forward. Regards, -as On 14 Feb 2012, at 12:56, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > IMHO, we should choose the representation that can be compared to each > of the five data models with the minimal effort. If we succeed, we > can re-propose the same method for name registries. --Apple-Mail=_2E8FC348-5591-41AB-BAE2-EFFB2A91DBC5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii We tried to precisely to that. We = studied and compared the 5 different data models trying to find some = common data-structures before writing the = draft rir-json

Not sure = if we will succeed, I am confident that we could do a nice work. There = are many differences in syntax although the semantics are very similar = (not always identical, but similar).

I guess = doing the same for name-registries would be hard as well but not = impossible and I think it would be the way = forward.

Regards,
-as

On 14 Feb 2012, at 12:56, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

IMHO, we = should choose the representation that can be compared to each
of the = five data models with the minimal effort.  If we succeed, we
can = re-propose the same method for name = registries.

= --Apple-Mail=_2E8FC348-5591-41AB-BAE2-EFFB2A91DBC5-- From drc@virtualized.org Tue Feb 14 11:17:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B426421F8782 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:17:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RW-DoN2UtBSM for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:17:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF0421F8763 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:17:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.159] (unknown [173.245.57.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E27A21705A; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:17:16 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7200F0FB-1DF0-4674-8DE0-41B430398C6A@virtualized.org> References: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> To: Francisco Obispo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:17:18 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > With the Launch of new GTLDs, and the creation of potentially several = hundreds of new registries, each one of them will try to implement their = own interface, this is due to the fact, that ICANN will award you with = an extra point if you provide a searchable interface. There will be more registries, but I'm not sure it follows that each = registry will implement a different interface. I suspect one of the = reasons ICANN staff have been actively involved in this discussion is to = try to limit the likelihood of exactly this. My guess is that if there = were an IETF-blessed standard, contractual requirements to abide by that = standard would eventually appear in gTLD/registrar contracts. > On the other hand, RIRs, are only 5 and _should_ be easier to sit down = on a table on a working session and get things done. Um. _Currently_, there is 1 IANA, 5 RIRs, 2 NIRs in LACNIC region, 4 or = 5 NIRs in the APNIC region, an unknown (to me) number of LIRs in the = ARIN region running RWhois, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. In = addition, given the way things are moving, it is likely there will be a = number of "secondary market" address registries. Since it has (to date) = proven impossible for the various parties involved in the post-IPv4 free = pool addressing world to work together, there is no administrative = framework like the gTLD registry contracts or RAA to define registration = data access interfaces. It is true that _currently_ the RIRs are = directing this show, but I'm unsure how long this will remain true. Regards, -drc From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 14 11:30:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F33121E802C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:30:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2WT6lxaakmFr for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321ED21E801B for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:30:23 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=dhGc6aHI1AlAJsdMh18yhGvbyjuSTrCS0cSNX7zgaY/R9ceqzT7ymonm xITEIuq0uBx3j+t4LLjjJzzgGnzLFY3FRla+gICOYyengcX/fumjusaJh JmOeLhor0FMiUdq; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1329247823; x=1360783823; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=rjzgl306SRESmAInjBUM9hiHtKPwPyoEP0Sw1Tj826Y=; b=E7GsOxrxZLx9WeFNrNH12O2R/Ulgh15lc7d1cPZ0VcfGBZFk/7vmOLkv DhXgwD/l7nrv5cFCdBvVfdebs+1XR0WNLmri4GCUD/nEZbq7NSEwLMNhM Wz8zAfBmhWxTjuU; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="6042819" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-002.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 11:30:22 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-002.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::cbe:ffa5:17f0:a24a%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:30:10 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Pete Resnick Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CAgAAHzQCAABNlgIAAFBmAgACPsoCAACWcAIAACumAgAAGxwCAARXhAIAAEsYAgAAqiwCABcSAAIAAE8qA Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:30:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.38] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: KWIvWVSyow5Crmpx9rwvIA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:30:26 -0000 Seems like our decision has been made. As a proponent of a combined approach, I will have to carefully consider my= participation in a group whose charter states "development of the number r= egistry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar to name registrie= s". Other charter statements notwithstanding, this clearly establishes name= s as second class citizens. On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >=20 > So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something that= is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear why the pro= posed work is necessary to do now and can't be done sequentially, and espec= ially the risk to the names work if it is not done concurrently. >=20 From drc@virtualized.org Tue Feb 14 11:41:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD12921E802E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:41:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pgC3iA0DVUWB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56BB21E8023 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.159] (unknown [173.245.57.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 433781705A; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:41:40 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73BC1CB2-CF99-4825-AC24-CBEB7B9D6365@virtualized.org> References: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:41:45 -0000 Andrew, On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > One of the things I'm finding troubling about this discussion is the > repeated claim that it is obviously better to have one protocol for > accessing the registration data for number resources and for names, > that we need one application for this, and so on. As nearly as I can > tell, the only premise in support of that conclusion is that it's the > way things are now There is also the idea that having multiple methods to do the same thing = is wasteful of resources and operationally more challenging to deal = with. > While it is true that some of the data in these different types of > repositories are quite similar, even when the data are similar the use > model is quite different. =20 I'd argue the use model is most frequently the same: "I have an object, = who is the owner of that object so I can scream at them." > Given the above, it is entirely possible that there would be so little > in common in a "single protocol" between these two types of repository > that all the real work would be done in the mappings. =20 To me, the similarity in data and usage suggests a need for a common = data schema and representation, albeit with potentially different access = methods. Regards, -drc From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Feb 14 11:44:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A000821F84DA for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6E3FVIFyH2x for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084C521F84D7 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:02 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CAgAAHzQCAABNlgIAAFBmAgACPsoCAACWcAIAACumAgAAGxwCAARXhAIAAEsYAgAAqiwCABcSAAIAAE8qA//+NtqA= Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> In-Reply-To: <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:44:05 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] Of Behalf = Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:30 AM > To: Pete Resnick > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > Seems like our decision has been made. It didn't seem final to me. He specifically solicited further argument (an= d you cited him doing so). > As a proponent of a combined approach, I will have to carefully > consider my participation in a group whose charter states "development > of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs > peculiar to name registries". Other charter statements notwithstanding, > this clearly establishes names as second class citizens. I don't agree at all with "clearly". I've yet to see a claim that names is= n't an interesting or desirable problem to be solved, for example. Solving= numbers is merely low-hanging fruit and can set the stage for an easier su= ccess with names later. I still don't understand the assertion that their concurrent solution is th= e One True Path here. -MSK From aservin@lacnic.net Tue Feb 14 11:59:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2613821E80CA for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:59:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bTQ+7ywYsvl for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE8121E80C9 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:dc91:2cc2:bc1d:e8e4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:dc91:2cc2:bc1d:e8e4]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE3A308427; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:59:02 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:59:02 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> To: "Smith, Bill" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: Pete Resnick , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:59:10 -0000 Bill, I do not agree that the charter proposed establishes = name-registries as second class citizen. I think the quoted sentence is a bit out of context. If you read = the whole text: "The working group may, but need not, develop a data profile (or object format) to provide the support for name registries to use the protocol. The initial 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 needs peculiar to 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. Discussion of issues, within the Working Group, relating to name registry support is explicitly permitted; but actual work on that topic is declared out of scope at the beginning of work. It is expected that the Working Group would change this provision in its charter when and if the Working Group were prepared to adopt any document related to name registry support. " To me: - it sets an initial goal to work with numbers as an easier = target - it does not include work in names but it adds space to include = it in the future (I read, if names-registries have running code and = proposals based on practical experience we will add them). - it encourages to use solutions compatible for name-registries My humble recommendation is to sit down and write some code. The = nice thing about using restful is that it is very easy to have some = results with not much effort. Regards, .as On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:30, Smith, Bill wrote: > Seems like our decision has been made. >=20 > As a proponent of a combined approach, I will have to carefully = consider my participation in a group whose charter states "development = of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs peculiar = to name registries". Other charter statements notwithstanding, this = clearly establishes names as second class citizens. >=20 > On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something = that is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear why = the proposed work is necessary to do now and can't be done sequentially, = and especially the risk to the names work if it is not done = concurrently. >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From francisco.arias@icann.org Tue Feb 14 12:02:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E094421E80D8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:02:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h9Oi7Apn3j5Q for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:02:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663B721E80D2 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:02:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:02:33 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: Pete Resnick Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:02:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczrU5bzIvLGIUpxRcCpKSBzaXMcuw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:02:35 -0000 Hello Pete, On 2/14/12 10:19 AM, "Pete Resnick" wrote: >What I haven't been convinced of is that doing the work as distinct >units and sequentially will be harmful to the names work. Yes, *if* the >group wants to reuse the same protocols and *if* a bunch of stuff >required for the names work needed to be left out of the protocol in >order to get the numbers work done in a reasonable timeframe, it *might* >mean that re-jiggering the protocol to support the names work might take >longer than it would have if we undertook to do both things together. >But that doesn't see like it would be so terrible. And we may find that >the names protocol should be different than the numbers protocol. Or we >may find that, even though we concentrated on numbers first, we were >smart enough (and took enough input from the names folks) to leave >things extensible enough to accommodate the names work handily. Either >way, it seems better to wait until some of the numbers work is done >before deciding those issues. What I don't want to have happen is put >the names and numbers work in a death grip such that if there is >contention with one, it affects the other. > >Re-chartering to add work will be easier once we have a good track >record. Initial chartering with a larger set of work items is harder. > >So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something >that is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear why >the proposed work is necessary to do now and can't be done sequentially, >and especially the risk to the names work if it is not done concurrently. The problem is precisely what you mentioned above, that we designed a base protocol that only focused on number registries and later when we took on the name registries and discovered that the protocol had to be fixed to support name registries needs. Revising a protocol would not necessarily be trivial and may face the dislike of those that worked on it and those who may be already using it by then. I'd think we can develop a base protocol that takes into account the need of both name and number registries. Then we take the design of the number registries data profile ("the low-hanging fruit") and later the data profile for name registries ("the difficult work"). __ Francisco. From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 14 12:09:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD34521E80CF for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:09:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0nQimW0+mOe0 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AD321E8011 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:09:00 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=wobipdm7ws46HS1veCDRzx+opIUyGRVgSOLCUh6B37WO2e7DhsTUIYG5 4wbebq8oRDpvr+2010Ahx/zA7k3pnZ7cCk0yv5X6eOzt8r9hW1AzQsMiY cfGjRmUVG6Lg30X; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1329250140; x=1360786140; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tPllpLRrPMsjZhqJX0E2bMdVCFV8iyOu92q9CYRXzws=; b=QCK6zH8XYwwuWHCuI77tdjJCoP3GnmHccGgPlefP4tsRhm+uWsZEGFGc KkPAJkkfffmfV4R0RXLLZVUgjgATTEINTQ/zU6ZIbsJJCB3YdXzK/Dr8S daBgez2FZA9wLVl; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="6532606" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 12:09:00 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::55d3:9d86:3fc8:dbf4%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:08:59 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CAgAAHzQCAABNlgIAAFBmAgACPsoCAACWcAIAACumAgAAGxwCAARXhAIAAEsYAgAAqiwCABcSAAIAAE8qA//+NtqCAAH0iAA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:08:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.38] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: 89mkY9Na4gT/x4q3xrpvOg== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0F37E2089485E740B107240122E97C98@corp.ebay.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:09:08 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] Of Behalf= Of Smith, Bill >> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:30 AM >> To: Pete Resnick >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >>=20 >> Seems like our decision has been made. >=20 > It didn't seem final to me. He specifically solicited further argument (= and you cited him doing so). I have no plans to provide further argument. >=20 >> As a proponent of a combined approach, I will have to carefully >> consider my participation in a group whose charter states "development >> of the number registry support will not be constrained by needs >> peculiar to name registries". Other charter statements notwithstanding, >> this clearly establishes names as second class citizens. >=20 > I don't agree at all with "clearly". I've yet to see a claim that names = isn't an interesting or desirable problem to be solved, for example. Solvi= ng numbers is merely low-hanging fruit and can set the stage for an easier = success with names later. >=20 Clear or not, names are second class in the charter our AD prefers. I'm OK = with his preference, I'm OK with names as second class citizens, I'm just s= tating that given that, I'll need to consider whether participating in such= a group is worth the investment of my time (and money).= From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 14 12:09:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE3221E80DE for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:09:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odKwMCS54jV8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3957021E80CB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3422 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2012 20:09:10 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2012 20:09:10 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3abf66.xn--30v786c.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=NPtNe71r15nMTpHLKpoeQjzImmNVx5D0hAZkAG3MvIA=; b=rRF0aV3g4KScPElDSU9RZIwJyyHn4mLZaIi3GMMPaa2zbZA6tRhFlPUY7R6DE/95bm6CHNilfwopa1WhfaXXLkT8Zs6+sMDNDcId5vmPV/rfrxVBansgM6MfvPJS5e2XH5Wk/Ca1dfq9SoXuLOhAj1Ws6kOg6K7pRhXJLYq7R/E= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 14 Feb 2012 20:08:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20120214200848.30773.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Proposed charters X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:09:13 -0000 >I think it's unfortunate that we're put in a position to marshal the sentiment of >resistance on behalf of those ardently opposed to developing the two together, as >they are not participating on this list. Yoo hoo. (Waves hand.) Pete summed up the issues very well, so there's no need to rehash them. Truly, I think it's just dandy for people who want to work on names to work on names, so long as they don't expect us to wait while they get their act together. R's, John From dave.piscitello@icann.org Tue Feb 14 12:13:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72CB21E80D3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:13:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IMa5e73w61Gd for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FE121E80C8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:13:03 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Pete Resnick Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:12:57 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczrVQ5JcafIqqwNSpuRWf8u+0yCsQ== Message-ID: <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:13:07 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > From my perspective, I see some folks from (a large percentage of) > number registries willing to work on the protocol docs *and* write some > code while working on those docs (in fact, some code and docs have > already been written) for what I see as a relatively constrained problem > space. That seems like a perfect recipe for success. I also see a small > bunch of motivated names registry folks, a couple of which are willing > to write some code, and most of which are willing to write some docs, on > what it seems to me is a much thornier problem space. There is no doubt > in my mind that being able to use the same (or a similar) protocol for > access to both kinds of data is a good thing. But what I don't want to > do is set up a whole lot of fate sharing between what I see as two > separable efforts. I agree with this. > I would like to see name registry issues kept in mind > as we develop protocol, but I don't want an attempt to get a number > registry protocol nailed down to be derailed by difficult name registry > issues. I want the number registry work to sink or swim by itself. This is fair and a correct approach. > And that last bit is important: I absolutely foresee this WG doing work > on the names registry protocol. If the charter has positive assertions such as this, I'm happy with this. > I think once the WG gets a stake in the > ground with the number registry work, we should add charter items to get > the names registry work done. I'm also OK with this if it's clear from the original charter that name reg= istry work is in scope and that work won't be single-threaded if parties in= terested in name resources do what they claim they will do. =20 > What worries me is having charter items > that spell out the names registry work from the get go. I would rather > the WG stay focused on the numbers work first before starting the names > work in earnest. And to be frank, if we can't complete the numbers work, > I can't imagine the names work is going to complete. If we can complete > the numbers work, that leaves us free to build on it to get the names > work done. Again, I'm conceding to the chronology as you lay it out. I'm at this point= only asking that the scope affords us the maximum opportunity to study the= protocol for all purposes and that the charter accommodates development of= data profiles in addition to the initial number resource data profile.=20 I'm also asking that we jettison all the "you pooched IRIS/CRISP so you are= damned forever" and other unproductive characterizations, accusations, and= detritus.=20 > What I haven't been convinced of is that doing the work as distinct > units and sequentially will be harmful to the names work... > Either way, it seems better to wait until some of the numbers work is don= e > before deciding those issues. What I don't want to have happen is put > the names and numbers work in a death grip such that if there is > contention with one, it affects the other. I would not want that outcome, either. I want a bit more open-mindedness an= d inclusive thinking.=20 > So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something > that is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear why > the proposed work is necessary to do now and can't be done sequentially, > and especially the risk to the names work if it is not done concurrently. If sequentially doesn't mean exclusive of constructive input by folks who h= ave an interest in name resource work, I (personally) am willing to accede.= With all the bashing, offline threats, and the Taipei BoF trumps all comme= ntary you can forgive me if I have some misgivings. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPOsBNAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNLjwIAKaescPA1t4D3pM33LzGzNxX GVhWvwEQVFwh0YgdH9z5QVK8WBweQHQwoY7UnaszgstbNopBI9dRDyben5uvGesd 711iP3CNBsn+KCeKPUFbkEIjLWesBho3VZrfRpcPyTz+Bip5D842R9lqURva3rkh iVJwqvLRoaa7V/EE/KDI9uyqObeabKDSyuSSa7CNS/61ybWGBRxlyk6mg1xX2lc0 XzskV6uLgK4v0zUzrFDA3e133K26ckeMNPFcmm/8avkSmDtPOKT/dNUhnX+PbR+H f2NQX0xBskp9+W2G3u0sxD7e2Vm7SwuVqzqYmliT5FQ7XUrz1/85Xtb/4Og3zZE=3D =3Dc1ut -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 14 12:18:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADD221F85B5 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sNOE-RV5ujK0 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815B521F8588 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:18:13 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=e9FCN4MVJmhfhOFc9cGbAZ/CwQrSHNBxzAJTdoxDnld+TiP9gbJhLDDt I8YN7Dlxg8G3NL6bKBqN7/sxP1J8u8vbCS7+VYGC+kR5SvuxjOIjVoz2k dFgEdeLtKtlcoIE; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1329250694; x=1360786694; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=l9JvaiBKs388dwOymi/+p0ewdiUeMVKX9dpO/CvkTeI=; b=VuSTTx12L7I6MLD45ky0l+aGJ/smjWokXYqInRg3lgZbHWfe1MhuDp8y Q5Ky5Wgh0IdUSU7N2X2/NUCFolGGJtVl9zak6BEsCO1OLCZm3F5sNz/AS 9apcBFxcSjtZMD0; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="6532791" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 12:18:13 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::55d3:9d86:3fc8:dbf4%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:18:12 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Arturo Servin Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CAgAAHzQCAABNlgIAAFBmAgACPsoCAACWcAIAACumAgAAGxwCAARXhAIAAEsYAgAAqiwCABcSAAIAAE8qAgAAIFACAAAVYAA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: <2AA64AB0-8464-4BD0-BA0F-BC729E04F25E@paypal-inc.com> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.38] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: QCJWbft6cwTL/42J0OIQJw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:18:15 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: > Bill, >=20 > I do not agree that the charter proposed establishes name-registries as = second class citizen. We disagree then. >=20 >=20 > My humble recommendation is to sit down and write some code. The nice th= ing about using restful is that it is very easy to have some results with n= ot much effort. >=20 I no longer write code (sadly). Rather, I am a consumer with an interest in= this work and I have expressed that. Presumably that will be taken into ac= count in the formation of this WG, regardless of whether I write code.= From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Feb 14 12:20:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE0D21E80F8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:20:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ga+gSqGeeTEJ for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC0121E8045 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:20:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DFC61ECB41C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:20:34 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120214202034.GC22144@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> <73BC1CB2-CF99-4825-AC24-CBEB7B9D6365@virtualized.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <73BC1CB2-CF99-4825-AC24-CBEB7B9D6365@virtualized.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:20:44 -0000 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:41:40AM -0800, David Conrad wrote: > > I'd argue the use model is most frequently the same: "I have an object, who is the owner of that object so I can scream at them." > If that were a sufficient condition for them all to be treated as "the same thing", then we'd also have to include insurance contracts, product-defect handling, and airplane ticketing systems in scope (just for starters). Of course it is true that at some level, there is a similarity between number registrations and name registrations: they're both "registrations"; and historically they happened to be contained in one central registration database, which is how we got one protocol for accessing them. If they're really so deeply the same that they share all this data, then there ought to be _no risk_ in starting with numbers anyway: the name systems can just pick up all the work that's been done by someone else. > To me, the similarity in data and usage suggests a need for a common > data schema and representation, albeit with potentially different > access methods. Yes, me too, which is why I am sanguine about the risk that the number resource work will just turn out to be unusable for name registries. I can't see how _anybody_ would come up with something that is deeply incompatible, and therefore I support starting with the work that is well in hand because we can get it done quickly and be sure we can continue with the other stuff afterwards. But I could be wrong, and so could you, because we haven't actually done this work and so we don't know. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From drc@virtualized.org Tue Feb 14 12:31:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0E021E80C6 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bKl68qbgwSuC for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BC821E8011 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.159] (unknown [173.245.57.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E02821705A; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <20120214202034.GC22144@mail.yitter.info> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:00 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0360A077-84A7-49FB-83D5-5ADDC0DC2F0F@virtualized.org> References: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> <73BC1CB2-CF99-4825-AC24-CBEB7B9D6365@virtualized.org> <20120214202034.GC22144@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:31:02 -0000 Andrew, On Feb 14, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> I'd argue the use model is most frequently the same: "I have an = object, who is the owner of that object so I can scream at them." >=20 > If that were a sufficient condition for them all to be treated as "the > same thing", then we'd also have to include insurance contracts, > product-defect handling, and airplane ticketing systems in scope (just > for starters). =20 Seriously? I was, of course, referencing the context associated with = network resources. Sorry if I didn't make that clear (didn't really = think it was necessary). Live and learn. > Of course it is true that at some level, there is a > similarity between number registrations and name registrations: > they're both "registrations"; and historically they happened to be > contained in one central registration database, which is how we got > one protocol for accessing them. =20 Exactly. One would think it would be possible to capitalize on this. = However, as others have noted, it would seem "it's all over but for the = screaming". A such, I'll go waste my time elsewhere. Regards, -drc From presnick@qualcomm.com Tue Feb 14 12:32:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A9C21E8045 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2no7D4FeK-PS for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497F321E8011 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1329251519; x=1360787519; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F3AC4BC.9010602@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Tu e,=2014=20Feb=202012=2014:31:56=20-0600|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Francisco=20Arias=20|CC:=20"weirds@ietf.org"=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[weirds]=20New=20new=20proposed=20c harter=20text|References:=20|In-Reply-To:=20|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D "ISO-8859-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[1 72.30.48.1]; bh=jXyZsU4mdOoRljEV9s05H2m9fZyPuh8j2OGzOoLWpS8=; b=A/KFMNVxEDjB0UWgAMnRvaCFUZ/bPt+DdZ1wSCH2uyBXIM989t+GJDgo m8gEt6FDT9lTX6u5TsgenU5jQZvrb0hw4DBtpwJOJlhdbKNld7n42RkOj bijFCoNgYgpjBuBAw+bA4Yg/lwdGbWVtMW/TgF+UtbOnzMSwGNOCEkbTF k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6620"; a="160842594" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 12:31:58 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="170457554" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Feb 2012 12:31:58 -0800 Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:31:57 -0800 Message-ID: <4F3AC4BC.9010602@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:31:56 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Arias References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:32:00 -0000 Hi Francisco, My evaluation here is weighing risks. So let's talk about them: On 2/14/12 2:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > The problem is precisely what you mentioned above, that we designed a base > protocol that only focused on number registries and later when we took on > the name registries and discovered that the protocol had to be fixed to > support name registries needs. Revising a protocol would not necessarily > be trivial and may face the dislike of those that worked on it and those > who may be already using it by then. > OK, so this is the risk of not doing them combined. I'm trying to figure out if there is some way to describe more precisely or quantify those risks. What are the kinds of things that you think might need to be fixed if we didn't combine the work? Andrew said in a recent message: > I can't see how_anybody_ would come up with something that is deeply > incompatible, and therefore I support starting with the work that is > well in hand because we can get it done quickly and be sure we can > continue with the other stuff afterwards. Now, maybe he is being too optimistic, and if you think he is, I'd like to hear about where those risks are. That's what I'm trying to weigh on the one hand. I agree with you when you say: > I'd think we can develop a base protocol that takes into account the need > of both name and number registries. But "taking into account the need of both" is different than "combining the work". As Andrew's proposed charter says (or can be clarified to say), the needs of names will be taken into account, but if there's a contentious point, the needs of names can be put aside for the moment. It's that "contentious point" problem that's the risk on the other side. I see the possibility that the WG could bog down trying to address contentious points having to do with names. Again, that might be hard to quantify, but as has been said, there are many more names registries, many more economic and political issues that come up in discussions of whois replacements for names registries, and that makes me worried that a lot of energy might be spent on working through those issues and not on protocol work. I want to give the chair of the WG the ability to say, "Yes, the discussion seems clear that we should address that names issue in the spec, because it's clear that this is non-contentious and does no harm to moving forward with numbers", but still be able to say, "No, this is a contentious point, and though we might like to solve it in this protocol, it's going to take too much time and we'll leave out that feature until later." pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 From presnick@qualcomm.com Tue Feb 14 12:55:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6878C21E8105 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:55:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fwn8ete0xny for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B189121E8103 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:55:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1329252914; x=1360788914; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F3ACA2B.8010904@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Tu e,=2014=20Feb=202012=2014:55:07=20-0600|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Dave=20Piscitello=20|CC:=20"weirds@ietf.org"=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[weirds]=20New=20new=20proposed=20c harter=20text|References:=20<20120209154706.36620.qmail@j oyce.lan>=09=09<387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org>=09 <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net>=09=09<9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.o rg>=09=09=09=09=09<4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.co m>=20<8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> |In-Reply-To:=20<8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@ica nn.org>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-88 59-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207 bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.48.1]; bh=vHgTQQIPenH/0P60W+wGoGujSqucyc6vdmBmby2+/54=; b=ZHCuhElviZzCqvWMdgKCG5g7Z+1j1Azo2oW4jtR8QSovWMk/oGX+Xjk+ 4gDf50OhVE3cVneFrNq29HmE01mUZnqhokqFGU59TBYi0RZMCQ/+pG44j 6GNzTpEhGMhO2+602KR7gHf1+DTp6ITza7obz/tMAwAYAUgOjrc8gpNxU s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6620"; a="160853981" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 12:55:11 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="170463899" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Feb 2012 12:55:11 -0800 Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:55:10 -0800 Message-ID: <4F3ACA2B.8010904@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:55:07 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Piscitello References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:55:32 -0000 Hi Dave, A great deal of agreement between us in your message. Let's see if there's anything big still outstanding. On 2/14/12 2:12 PM, Dave Piscitello wrote: >> And that last bit is important: I absolutely foresee this WG doing work >> on the names registry protocol. >> > If the charter has positive assertions such as this, I'm happy with this. > As I said in my reply to Francisco, so long as there are also "out clauses" that allow the chair to say, "That's a name-related rat hole. Let's avoid it for now", I'm OK with making those positive assertions. >> I think once the WG gets a stake in the >> ground with the number registry work, we should add charter items to get >> the names registry work done. >> > I'm also OK with this if it's clear from the original charter that name registry work is in scope and that work won't be single-threaded if parties interested in name resources do what they claim they will do. > OK, this may be just a language issue. If I were to use the words "name registry work is in scope", I would mean that name registry work is part of the initial deliverable list. That's the part that makes me queasy. I'm fine with having an eye to the name registry work and making sure that those inputs are heard. And if parties interested in name resources want to start doing implementations of the protocol and come back and say, "Hey, if you just allow that query field to contain any sort of UTF-8 text instead of a binary numeric value, that would make things much smoother for us names types", I think that's peachy. What I don't want to have happen is for such a statement to become, "Even if you have good reasons to make that field a binary numeric value for the numbers work, it just won't work for the names stuff and you can't publish the document with it that way!" I want a reasonable answer to be, "Let's publish it that way for now, and leave the issue for later." Can we split this atom? > Again, I'm conceding to the chronology as you lay it out. I'm at this point only asking that the scope affords us the maximum opportunity to study the protocol for all purposes and that the charter accommodates development of data profiles in addition to the initial number resource data profile. > The data profiles I'm less queasy about. I guess the only issue here is, can we leave the "name profile document" off of the charter for now and add it later once it becomes clear that (a) the protocol work is solidified and (b) the names folks are in the blocks ready to write/implement? (For the record, I'm a big believer in implementing while writing.) > I'm also asking that we jettison all the "you pooched IRIS/CRISP so you are damned forever" and other unproductive characterizations, accusations, and detritus. > If you're talking about the discussion here to date, yeah, folks are being a bit snarky on the list. Civil tongues and thick skins would be greatly appreciated (and would make this whole thing go more smoothly). If there is stuff that reads that way in the charter, let's soften it. I do want to be clear in the charter that we are trying to take a measured approach now because previous efforts haven't been successful, as that will explain to the rest of the IESG why we think this has more potential. But the charter does not need to caricature past efforts. >> What I haven't been convinced of is that doing the work as distinct >> units and sequentially will be harmful to the names work... >> >> >> Either way, it seems better to wait until some of the numbers work is done >> before deciding those issues. What I don't want to have happen is put >> the names and numbers work in a death grip such that if there is >> contention with one, it affects the other. >> > I would not want that outcome, either. I want a bit more open-mindedness and inclusive thinking. > Absolutely. >> So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something >> that is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear why >> the proposed work is necessary to do now and can't be done sequentially, >> and especially the risk to the names work if it is not done concurrently. >> > If sequentially doesn't mean exclusive of constructive input by folks who have an interest in name resource work, I (personally) am willing to accede. With all the bashing, offline threats, and the Taipei BoF trumps all commentary you can forgive me if I have some misgivings. > Bashing and offline threats have no place here, and even though this is not a chartered WG, this is an IETF list I will take such behavior seriously and will enforce the procedures that we have about such nonsense. Anyone may let me know (offline) if there's a need for me to use those enforcement tools. Do understand that things said at the BoF caused me (and others on the IESG and IAB) some misgivings about the "let's all work together for the grand unified solution" idea. So I've been leaning toward incrementalism. As much as we can meet in the middle, let's do so. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 From warren@kumari.net Tue Feb 14 13:04:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B1221E8103 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eu7Fi3+PvkTh for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224B221E8036 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-119-93.cbf.corp.google.com (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 884CF1B404C7; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:04:13 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:04:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> To: Dave Piscitello X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Pete Resnick , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:04:15 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 >=20 > On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: >=20 [ SNIP SNIP ] >=20 >> So, I like Andrew's current charter. If we want to go with something >> that is more dependent on the names work, I'm going to want to hear = why >> the proposed work is necessary to do now and can't be done = sequentially, >> and especially the risk to the names work if it is not done = concurrently. >=20 > If sequentially doesn't mean exclusive of constructive input by folks = who have an interest in name resource work, I (personally) am willing to = accede. As am I. > With all the bashing, offline threats, and the Taipei BoF trumps all = commentary you can forgive me if I have some misgivings. Yup, me too -- I'm somewhat disappointed (and surprised) by the = animosity, but hopefully after the chartering things will get better... W > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >=20 > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPOsBNAAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNLjwIAKaescPA1t4D3pM33LzGzNxX > GVhWvwEQVFwh0YgdH9z5QVK8WBweQHQwoY7UnaszgstbNopBI9dRDyben5uvGesd > 711iP3CNBsn+KCeKPUFbkEIjLWesBho3VZrfRpcPyTz+Bip5D842R9lqURva3rkh > iVJwqvLRoaa7V/EE/KDI9uyqObeabKDSyuSSa7CNS/61ybWGBRxlyk6mg1xX2lc0 > XzskV6uLgK4v0zUzrFDA3e133K26ckeMNPFcmm/8avkSmDtPOKT/dNUhnX+PbR+H > f2NQX0xBskp9+W2G3u0sxD7e2Vm7SwuVqzqYmliT5FQ7XUrz1/85Xtb/4Og3zZE=3D > =3Dc1ut > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Feb 14 13:12:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCC021E801D for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SpZjx9qWFK+h for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780A021E811C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:04 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:04 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:04 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczrVQ5JcafIqqwNSpuRWf8u+0yCsQABz4/A Message-ID: References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <8309645B-E1F6-446F-BDAD-F4AF16DCE1C8@icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:06 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:13 PM > To: Pete Resnick > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text >=20 > If sequentially doesn't mean exclusive of constructive input by folks > who have an interest in name resource work, I (personally) am willing > to accede. With all the bashing, offline threats, and the Taipei BoF > trumps all commentary you can forgive me if I have some misgivings. For my part, I never said anything like "Taipei BoF trumps all". What I me= ant to convey is that there was a lot of resistance presented there, and ma= ny people that are on this list now weren't there to hear it or present con= trary argument or evidence. Strangely, though, those objectors haven't carried their views to this list= . Thus, my purpose was merely to make everyone aware of them, and point ou= t that this list's archive is not the sole source of input to consensus on = whether and how to charter this working group. From sm@resistor.net Tue Feb 14 13:19:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD9D21E8116 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:19:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZjDwvZLbwYX3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:19:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC9921E8036 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1ELJgbl000896 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:19:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329254387; i=@resistor.net; bh=FfBcBe+imrL2ztXT5nlW7dpr7VwpvdJWLgLtYvrKfPA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=AmD0PEsVxzgU0EEMFxR+utuH/1oI6ex+9YCZ9gTYNWEhwG1hwkagOnRQm6Xh4/vWF JTFZ/lQCsEMwonq19FAWZk/ea7ZDmqppWoJgLjiNzCpToKbntKqqLpaRvoop0vY8HD mH4cIDxXJIrklawopPSRfNUw8V2bhl8YFnb0QiAk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329254387; i=@resistor.net; bh=FfBcBe+imrL2ztXT5nlW7dpr7VwpvdJWLgLtYvrKfPA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=16fOTgm/QkTTlGcm6EI51muyi/W+6vldk+5O6sqvzeKq16c9v9TCaoq62uKPl2KEF Y/rCKRHqTWesR/uk+3iocbjF110pyAf4sJVEWUtGrs/TzSL1dfbjAJdRqLWvGeKi+W Y0IwkxNY+I3YwI9Ck1A3MMskzSc0P8mU3C+0+OoI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120214123515.075095c0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:04 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> References: <20120209154706.36620.qmail@joyce.lan> <387C29A3-441E-4D8F-9B0F-F07A81796674@icann.org> <5D58A6A9-09A4-4AD9-A99B-08C282D764BB@lacnic.net> <9940CD9C-B8D7-4A54-BF5F-014C9B7AB8EE@icann.org> <4F3AA5A6.5080700@qualcomm.com> <1FD246E3-018E-4884-81F7-109040CFCF78@paypal.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:19:54 -0000 At 11:30 14-02-2012, Smith, Bill wrote: >notwithstanding, this clearly establishes names as second class citizens. If I may point out, number resources are third class citizens. :-) At 12:12 14-02-2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >I'm also asking that we jettison all the "you pooched IRIS/CRISP so >you are damned forever" and other unproductive characterizations, >accusations, and detritus. I'll +1 for the removal with a "no comment" for the rest of the sentence. >I would not want that outcome, either. I want a bit more >open-mindedness and inclusive thinking. That's a thought for Valentine's day. :-) To summarize the long discussion: (i) The number resources registries wanted to have a party for Valentine's day (ii) The name registries wanted in on the party (iii) The number resources registries say ok, but let's get the party started first (iv) The name registries insisted to be at the party at the start (v) The Eeyore came by to see what all the noise was about (vi) Valentine's day has to be postponed to avoid unhappiness Is the above a correct mischaracterization of the discussion? Regards, -sm From francisco.arias@icann.org Tue Feb 14 14:14:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5E121F8674 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:14:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kr5uhHtv62e for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC5621F85A4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:14:10 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: Pete Resnick Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:14:09 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AczrZfpABqJlUWVvQ92wPatB19zRRQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3AC4BC.9010602@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:14:12 -0000 On 2/14/12 12:31 PM, "Pete Resnick" wrote: >I agree with you when you say: > >>I'd think we can develop a base protocol that takes into account the need >>of both name and number registries. Excellent! That means we agree in principle, let's work on the details. >But "taking into account the need of both" is different than "combining >the work". As Andrew's proposed charter says (or can be clarified to >say), the needs of names will be taken into account, but if there's a >contentious point, <<moment.>>> That's where some of us see the problem. I could live with the data profile for name registries being left at the last place in the milestones. But leaving name registries in a lesser position to number registries for the definition of the base protocol is hard to understand. >It's that "contentious point" problem that's the risk on the other side. >I see the possibility that the WG could bog down trying to address >contentious points having to do with names. Again, that might be hard to >quantify, but as has been said, there are many more names registries, >many more economic and political issues that come up in discussions of >whois replacements for names registries, and that makes me worried that >a lot of energy might be spent on working through those issues and not >on protocol work. I'd think this would be the issue of the data profile. If we leave this to the end, we should be fine, shouldn't we? >I want to give the chair of the WG the ability to say, "Yes, the >discussion seems clear that we should address that names issue in the >spec, because it's clear that this is non-contentious and does no harm >to moving forward with numbers", but still be able to say, "No, this is >a contentious point, and though we might like to solve it in this >protocol, it's going to take too much time and we'll leave out that >feature until later." I find that possibility troublesome. In order to have a protocol that serves both the needs of number and name registries we need to have both in the discussion on equal footing. Having a charter that allows the possibility of disregarding the requirements of one type of registry doesn't seem to help in finding a solution for both types of registries. Regards, __ Francisco. From warren@kumari.net Tue Feb 14 14:31:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090DE21E80E5 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:31:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V-zBHxJFkzGm for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC4B21E80C4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-119-93.cbf.corp.google.com (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F47B1B40C73; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:31:29 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:31:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> To: Francisco Obispo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:31:31 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > With the Launch of new GTLDs, and the creation of potentially several = hundreds of new registries, each one of them will try to implement their = own interface, this is due to the fact, that ICANN will award you with = an extra point if you provide a searchable interface. I *think* that that is only on the web interface, but as with many = things in the DAG is is kinda vague: 1.8. Searchability. Offering searchability capabilities on the Directory = Services is optional but if offered by the Registry Operator it shall = comply with the specification described in this section. 1.8.1. Registry Operator will offer searchability on the web-based = Directory Service. Scoring: 2 =96 exceeds requirements: Response meets all the attributes for a = score of 1and includes: (1) A Searchable Whois service: Whois service = includes web-based search capabilities by domain name, registrant name, = postal address, ... W >=20 > Having a proposed format, in place in 2012 is critical to avoid this = situation during launch in 2013.=20 >=20 > On the other hand, RIRs, are only 5 and _should_ be easier to sit down = on a table on a working session and get things done. >=20 > I would encourage to have both working groups in parallel, I believe = there is enough people already interested to be able to do that. >=20 > Francisco=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >=20 >> I agree with this statement,=20 >>=20 >> The de-coupling of the discussion from the base protocol from data = representation, should allow us to move quickly into proposals for the = latter. >>=20 >> Francisco >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Francisco Arias wrote: >>=20 >>> If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the = data >>> profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or = RIRs/NIRs vs >>> hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data = profile >>> come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the base >>> protocol has to include both name and number registries. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >=20 From presnick@qualcomm.com Tue Feb 14 14:39:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA97921F8569 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:39:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXPqPcr0RUjt for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D502621F8567 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:39:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1329259143; x=1360795143; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F3AE283.5080106@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Tu e,=2014=20Feb=202012=2016:38:59=20-0600|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Francisco=20Arias=20|CC:=20"weirds@ietf.org"=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[weirds]=20New=20new=20proposed=20c harter=20text|References:=20|In-Reply-To:=20|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D "ISO-8859-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[1 72.30.39.5]; bh=iRQ+fBtskI+nfby9j5RWfHdOS1Of099640ufvAX2qaE=; b=iR4IgNzZncTBNnU+zIRjLt7NWi9NuXb5sEUdNGBwkZnOxoWpdE4xd1VI 0hANmkt7kSQ+Z+0lufBZ+MWgc1mx0L0v4IjIlseHOlvxZmayc1usho/CY E8xfnaPRIOta6wQCUrSHZ3516DS71gnG+j86VJu1L5k5uDT5Hett9OdEM A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6620"; a="163187888" Received: from ironmsg02-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 14:39:03 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,417,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="119301463" Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by ironmsg02-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Feb 2012 14:39:03 -0800 Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:39:02 -0800 Message-ID: <4F3AE283.5080106@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:38:59 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Arias References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:39:04 -0000 On 2/14/12 4:14 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: >> I want to give the chair of the WG the ability to say, "Yes, the >> discussion seems clear that we should address that names issue in the >> spec, because it's clear that this is non-contentious and does no harm >> to moving forward with numbers", but still be able to say, "No, this is >> a contentious point, and though we might like to solve it in this >> protocol, it's going to take too much time and we'll leave out that >> feature until later." >> > I find that possibility troublesome. In order to have a protocol that > serves both the needs of number and name registries we need to have both > in the discussion on equal footing. Having a charter that allows the > possibility of disregarding the requirements of one type of registry > doesn't seem to help in finding a solution for both types of registries. > So, this is what I need explained to me: - If things go well (whether we "do it together" or we do it as "numbers protocol with input from names"), all of the names issues are addressed when we build the protocol and it is plug-and-play usable for names. Everybody is happy. - If things go poorly under "do it together" idea, there is no protocol for names and no protocol for numbers. Nobody is happy. - If things go poorly under the "incremental" idea, we end up with two different protocols, maybe with one based on the other, but otherwise incompatible. I understand the good in the first. I understand the bad in the second. Could someone please explain the nature of the bad in the third? I understand that it will take more time, and obviously more code will end up being written (which are not good things), but are there other harms that I'm not seeing? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 14 15:13:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4611921E8105 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:13:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4X9z8R95lHHy for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3359F21E807F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:13:01 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=UBnuB/OoaVzD8LqmHgU5mcDnLWhVvffjmHK2rxmV3/agENFGCSqvdvVJ 3JLS/VmJ/bqusdFADXhM6g5UKWHZCp0v62qHD5FsQstj6Hxd1mInjAwoa 7+yYDmAxjTBLJBl; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1329261181; x=1360797181; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=QXgcjSe9NI9IZHuu5+/5IqOBdDZbqXsjDcn1v3+Wwg0=; b=ofxTU/5NSR79RE3DHBMK0b1cyvfOfGbPu/sTx6MkY40V1MgScVpyVETt T9fPmQ7lHkAaSD3IxihlSg4CnCa4H0k5guju5U3HMVuVSWGy6AY3eC1K8 4F3N6hiG+j1K+GV; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,420,1325491200"; d="scan'208";a="6048490" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 15:13:01 -0800 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S11.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::74c6:c884:c352:716]) by DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::55d3:9d86:3fc8:dbf4%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:13:00 -0700 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Pete Resnick Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: AQHM5zCZJ0RLtxSo4k6XVPQ1kBO2eJY1I1CAgAAHzQCAABNlgIAAFBmAgACPsoCAACWcAIAACumAgAAGxwCAARXhAIAAEsYAgAAqiwCABcSAAIAAHNeAgAAIOACAAByPgIAABvCAgAAJfwA= Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:12:58 +0000 Message-ID: <0C2FD1E2-82FD-4F35-8FAC-3C1300384AC3@paypal.com> References: <4F3AE283.5080106@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3AE283.5080106@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.245.25.38] x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: C6z7y19qnnrdgm+UuZhrQA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:13:02 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: >=20 > So, this is what I need explained to me: >=20 > - If things go well (whether we "do it together" or we do it as "numbers = protocol with input from names"), all of the names issues are addressed whe= n we build the protocol and it is plug-and-play usable for names. Everybody= is happy. >=20 > - If things go poorly under "do it together" idea, there is no protocol f= or names and no protocol for numbers. Nobody is happy. >=20 > - If things go poorly under the "incremental" idea, we end up with two di= fferent protocols, maybe with one based on the other, but otherwise incompa= tible. >=20 > I understand the good in the first. I understand the bad in the second. C= ould someone please explain the nature of the bad in the third? I understan= d that it will take more time, and obviously more code will end up being wr= itten (which are not good things), but are there other harms that I'm not s= eeing? >=20 Some may consider it a small issue, others perhaps not. For those that actu= ally "use" the protocol(s), simplicity, consistency, and ease of use are ve= ry important. To the extent that protocol differences bleed into user exper= ience, one is preferable to two. Another issue with option three, is that while the discussion on this list = has been of the form "names will delay numbers", a sequential approach as p= roposed in the "preferred" charter may preclude name work before, or parall= el to, number work should the number activity be delayed for some reason, u= nrelated to names. This is admittedly speculative, but the same can be said= for the opposite argument as well. To be clear, I am no longer arguing *for* a combined effort. I suspect that= it is doomed to a second outcome. Hopefully, we'll get a first result but = third remains an option.= From andy@hxr.us Tue Feb 14 16:50:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF3321F8631 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YbUlBvaWs15U for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F168121F861C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so475590dak.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.75.135 with SMTP id c7mr63879418pbw.43.1329267010625; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.10] (ip72-196-196-5.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.196.196.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h6sm6998944pbg.5.2012.02.14.16.50.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:09 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Newton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:50:05 -0500 Message-Id: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> To: weirds@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFaIjAOk3jQLkFdQa+3EtlPMoFsLYMHOUHWeHeAEvumjl8vCHEaJ+5Eo1RfQNMClOb0suS Subject: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:50:12 -0000 As the charter discussion ebbs and flows between "numbers now, names = later" and "numbers now, names now", I couldn't help but get all teary = eyed thinking of the days when we use to do technical work in the IETF. = Ah, those were the days! So I thought I'd spend a couple of minutes trying to answer the question = of just what a names protocol would look like using the same approach = that the RIRs have put forward in rir-query and rir-json. The question = of just how compatible the efforts would be would seem to rest on just = how amenable the names proponents are to following the example and = direction set by the RIRs. Sorry to be blunt about that, but I'm too = tired to find a more diplomatic way of putting it. Using Steve Sheng's and Franciso Aria's dnrd draft as a basis, the = following queries would be removed: http://whois.test/conact/CID-4005/ and = http://whois.test/host/ns1.example.test/ Internet users lookup domain names. They have no idea which registry to = contact if they saw a naked contact ID or NS name in the wild. rir-query = takes the same approach. It only supports queries for information that = users would find in other contexts. But relative queries would be supported, such as http://whois.test/example.test/operator and = http://whois.test/example.test/operator/contacts/abuse Similarly, the response(s) would have to align with the query structure. = The following is an example of a JSON response for = http://whois.test/example.test/ (where "entity" and "contacts" would = follow the entity object from rir-json): { "domain": { "handle": "9690-TEST", "name": "example.com", "status": [ "clientHold", "clientRenewProhibited", "clientUpdateProhibited" ], "registrationDate": "1992-07-26T09:10:56Z", "expirationDate": "2019-01-21T10:11:18Z", "remarks": [ "she sells seas shells", "down by the seashore" ], "uris": [ { "type": "source", "uri": "http://whois.registry.example/domain/xxxx" }, =85=20 ], "nameServers": [ "ns1.example.com", "ns2.example.com" ], "delegationKeys": [{ "algorithm": 7, "digest": "E68C017BD813B9AE2F4DD28E61AD014F859ED44C", "digestType": 1, "keyTag": 53814 }] }, "registrant": { "entity": { =85 }, "contacts": { "tech": [ =85 ], "admin": [ =85 ] } } } And that's basically it. Seems fairly straight forward to me. Thoughts?=20 Would a names proponent be willing to write this up more formally?=20 Would anybody be willing to prototype it? -andy= From fobispo@isc.org Tue Feb 14 16:55:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6053821F86C5 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:55:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTDEqPgOQe2z for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5372921F86C2 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7CFA5F98A2; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:55:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:cc7e:680e:555b:7d8c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:cc7e:680e:555b:7d8c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E68C216C6D; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:55:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:55:23 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:55:44 -0000 I personally think JSON is the wrong approach for this protocol. It lacks support for namespaces, (although some do it by adding a key = with the namespace). And although it is generally easy to parse, it does = not have the automatic formatting options (XSL, Stylesheets) that XML = does. I would much rather see JSON as an optional requirement, but instead use = XML as the main protocol encoding option. Francisco On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Andy Newton wrote: > As the charter discussion ebbs and flows between "numbers now, names = later" and "numbers now, names now", I couldn't help but get all teary = eyed thinking of the days when we use to do technical work in the IETF. = Ah, those were the days! >=20 > So I thought I'd spend a couple of minutes trying to answer the = question of just what a names protocol would look like using the same = approach that the RIRs have put forward in rir-query and rir-json. The = question of just how compatible the efforts would be would seem to rest = on just how amenable the names proponents are to following the example = and direction set by the RIRs. Sorry to be blunt about that, but I'm too = tired to find a more diplomatic way of putting it. >=20 > Using Steve Sheng's and Franciso Aria's dnrd draft as a basis, the = following queries would be removed: > http://whois.test/conact/CID-4005/ and = http://whois.test/host/ns1.example.test/ >=20 > Internet users lookup domain names. They have no idea which registry = to contact if they saw a naked contact ID or NS name in the wild. = rir-query takes the same approach. It only supports queries for = information that users would find in other contexts. >=20 > But relative queries would be supported, such as > http://whois.test/example.test/operator and = http://whois.test/example.test/operator/contacts/abuse >=20 > Similarly, the response(s) would have to align with the query = structure. The following is an example of a JSON response for = http://whois.test/example.test/ (where "entity" and "contacts" would = follow the entity object from rir-json): >=20 > { > "domain": { > "handle": "9690-TEST", > "name": "example.com", > "status": [ > "clientHold", > "clientRenewProhibited", > "clientUpdateProhibited" > ], > "registrationDate": "1992-07-26T09:10:56Z", > "expirationDate": "2019-01-21T10:11:18Z", > "remarks": [ > "she sells seas shells", > "down by the seashore" > ], > "uris": [ > { > "type": "source", > "uri": "http://whois.registry.example/domain/xxxx" > }, > =85=20 > ], > "nameServers": [ > "ns1.example.com", > "ns2.example.com" > ], > "delegationKeys": [{ > "algorithm": 7, > "digest": "E68C017BD813B9AE2F4DD28E61AD014F859ED44C", > "digestType": 1, > "keyTag": 53814 > }] > }, > "registrant": { > "entity": { =85 }, > "contacts": { > "tech": [ =85 ], > "admin": [ =85 ] > } > } > } >=20 > And that's basically it. Seems fairly straight forward to me. >=20 > Thoughts?=20 > Would a names proponent be willing to write this up more formally?=20 > Would anybody be willing to prototype it? >=20 > -andy > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From fobispo@isc.org Tue Feb 14 16:59:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A4521F8747 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:59:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZfYv-ueXL8M for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:59:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C786821F872E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F445F98B1; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:59:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:cc7e:680e:555b:7d8c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:cc7e:680e:555b:7d8c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFDF0216C6A; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:59:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:59:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <30581C11-E592-4175-A815-9F68671F1264@isc.org> References: <447D9131-E45E-45F1-A29D-B577C859B684@isc.org> To: Warren Kumari X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:59:34 -0000 If there is a lack of protocol specification, then people intending to = implement a web whois option will do so using their own ideas on how = this should be done. Some will through a whois->web bridge, some through = some RESTful interface, and some through a plain database query. The result=85 If you wanted to code a tool to lookup in several = registries at once, guess what: you will need to manually parse their = own format in order to make it usable.. which is no different from the = current whois implementation. And yes.. the DAG or AG (no longer Draft), is very vague about how to do = things. :-S Francisco On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: >=20 > On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >=20 >> With the Launch of new GTLDs, and the creation of potentially several = hundreds of new registries, each one of them will try to implement their = own interface, this is due to the fact, that ICANN will award you with = an extra point if you provide a searchable interface. >=20 > I *think* that that is only on the web interface, but as with many = things in the DAG is is kinda vague: >=20 > 1.8. Searchability. Offering searchability capabilities on the = Directory Services is optional but if offered by the Registry Operator = it shall comply with the specification described in this section. > 1.8.1. Registry Operator will offer searchability on the web-based = Directory Service. >=20 > Scoring: > 2 =96 exceeds requirements: Response meets all the attributes for a = score of 1and includes: (1) A Searchable Whois service: Whois service = includes web-based search capabilities by domain name, registrant name, = postal address, ... >=20 >=20 > W >=20 >>=20 >> Having a proposed format, in place in 2012 is critical to avoid this = situation during launch in 2013.=20 >>=20 >> On the other hand, RIRs, are only 5 and _should_ be easier to sit = down on a table on a working session and get things done. >>=20 >> I would encourage to have both working groups in parallel, I believe = there is enough people already interested to be able to do that. >>=20 >> Francisco=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >>=20 >>> I agree with this statement,=20 >>>=20 >>> The de-coupling of the discussion from the base protocol from data = representation, should allow us to move quickly into proposals for the = latter. >>>=20 >>> Francisco >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Francisco Arias wrote: >>>=20 >>>> If people believe it would be more difficult the definition of the = data >>>> profile for name registries (given there is only a handful or = RIRs/NIRs vs >>>> hundreds of name registries) and want to have the numbers data = profile >>>> come first I could live with that. But the discussion about the = base >>>> protocol has to include both name and number registries. >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> weirds mailing list >>> weirds@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >>=20 From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 14 17:49:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7076B21E8026 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:49:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYAUHN3I-FUE for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDDF21E8015 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 33169 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2012 01:49:13 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2012 01:49:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3b0f19.xn--btvx9d.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=SP7z54ABPIRXV8js17HWk7v/tTC2fY576MxBXwKzMcs=; b=QdAUuKPkmfWgHjV30FEibPT89Ywq8v52dfHhLKHDIOaDsLde29bXdBqikGgL/kq+4gh2C2Fb5HgrTmydbETLnlbkro72pCJ0cGyqsV1jemKSwT9y+RP9WP3S2ZRI/nuGXPcPBOvszXne4jjz78iIE1srF6fr2JfRQBCOSlIaSR0= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 15 Feb 2012 01:48:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20120215014851.45548.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] data or display, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:49:16 -0000 >It lacks support for namespaces, (although some do it by adding a key with the >namespace). And although it is generally easy to parse, it does not have the >automatic formatting options (XSL, Stylesheets) that XML does. Are we designing a computer to computer data retrieval protocol, or a computer to human display system? All of the WHOIS problems I need to solve are computer to computer, with any display to people happening several layers up. My key needs are that my client can mechanically create the query to ask for the information it needs, and mechanically parse the answer it gets back. JSON and XML can both do that, but JSON is somewhat easier. If you want to build a proxy to reformat the answers and make them beautiful, that's a project you can do, but not one that I would want to put in the path with other stuff. Also, I don't understand the desire for name spaces unless you anticipate clients that forget what they asked for between the time they send the request and the time they get the answer back. Can you give some examples where it would be a problem? R's, John From andy@hxr.us Tue Feb 14 18:16:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C99021F8575 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:16:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g+eHM0TiW4aB for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E395C21F8573 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so839008iag.31 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.189.134 with SMTP id gi6mr8492274igc.18.1329272179434; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.10] (ip72-196-196-5.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.196.196.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h9sm2561969ibh.11.2012.02.14.18.16.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:16:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120215014851.45548.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:16:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120215014851.45548.qmail@joyce.lan> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkh+oJL+yzQMlOPkX/sO4NdZPWKQLhyJqDeZXkT+WD9Y1YVW5iO0d7vtsm96OK8gpC859Ap Cc: John Levine Subject: Re: [weirds] data or display, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:16:20 -0000 On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:48 PM, John Levine wrote: >> It lacks support for namespaces, (although some do it by adding a key = with the >> namespace). And although it is generally easy to parse, it does not = have the >> automatic formatting options (XSL, Stylesheets) that XML does. >=20 > Are we designing a computer to computer data retrieval protocol, or a > computer to human display system? All of the WHOIS problems I need to > solve are computer to computer, with any display to people happening > several layers up. My key needs are that my client can mechanically > create the query to ask for the information it needs, and mechanically > parse the answer it gets back. JSON and XML can both do that, but > JSON is somewhat easier. JSON is easier and far more common in REST. And apps that run in web = browsers have an easier time understanding it, oddly enough. I should also point out that there is nothing in the proposal or in the = rir-query, rir-json drafts that precludes a registry from serving up XML = or even HTML. If a user puts one of those URLs into a browser, it would = be perfectly acceptable to respond with something that looks pretty to = humans. But as John points out computer-to-human and = computer-to-computer are two different problems. > If you want to build a proxy to reformat the answers and make them > beautiful, that's a project you can do, but not one that I would want > to put in the path with other stuff. >=20 > Also, I don't understand the desire for name spaces unless you > anticipate clients that forget what they asked for between the time > they send the request and the time they get the answer back. Can you > give some examples where it would be a problem? There is, btw, a JSON namespaces draft out there somewhere, along with a = JSON schema draft. I've referenced neither by design. -andy= From fobispo@isc.org Tue Feb 14 18:33:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DD121F85B9 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:33:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Gu4LqUAINld for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:33:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BB821F85B8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:33:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4255F9899; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:32:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38194216C6A; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:32:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:32:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3BF4EFEF-EDCB-4282-B053-FCA561F8329C@isc.org> References: <20120215014851.45548.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: John Levine , weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] data or display, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:33:15 -0000 XML is computer-to-computer, but it happens to have wide support and = adoption. It might not be as trivial to process as JSON, although, = depending on the use and the language, sometimes its just as easy. IMHO namespaces will be provided to identify the various 'objects' to be = represented within the response format. This will allow for = extensibility in a well-documented way, leaving off the 'guess' work. XML is already used in EPP which is used in both RIRs and in domain = registries, and browsers fully support them without JS support or = external plugins. XML has mechanisms not only to parse, but also to 'validate' its = content. This feature is currently unavailable in JSON, where all the = validation would have to be done by the programmer reading the content. XML represents a Data-exchange format, while JSON is more of a computer = representation of a data structure. JSON is assumed to be encoded in UTF-8, while XML allows you to specify = the encoding. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of JSON, but I also believe that we = should use the right tool for the job. regards, Francisco On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >=20 > On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:48 PM, John Levine wrote: >=20 >>> It lacks support for namespaces, (although some do it by adding a = key with the >>> namespace). And although it is generally easy to parse, it does not = have the >>> automatic formatting options (XSL, Stylesheets) that XML does. >>=20 >> Are we designing a computer to computer data retrieval protocol, or a >> computer to human display system? All of the WHOIS problems I need = to >> solve are computer to computer, with any display to people happening >> several layers up. My key needs are that my client can mechanically >> create the query to ask for the information it needs, and = mechanically >> parse the answer it gets back. JSON and XML can both do that, but >> JSON is somewhat easier. >=20 > JSON is easier and far more common in REST. And apps that run in web = browsers have an easier time understanding it, oddly enough. >=20 > I should also point out that there is nothing in the proposal or in = the rir-query, rir-json drafts that precludes a registry from serving up = XML or even HTML. If a user puts one of those URLs into a browser, it = would be perfectly acceptable to respond with something that looks = pretty to humans. But as John points out computer-to-human and = computer-to-computer are two different problems. >=20 >> If you want to build a proxy to reformat the answers and make them >> beautiful, that's a project you can do, but not one that I would want >> to put in the path with other stuff. >>=20 >> Also, I don't understand the desire for name spaces unless you >> anticipate clients that forget what they asked for between the time >> they send the request and the time they get the answer back. Can you >> give some examples where it would be a problem? >=20 > There is, btw, a JSON namespaces draft out there somewhere, along with = a JSON schema draft. I've referenced neither by design. >=20 > -andy > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 14 18:49:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C1B21E801A for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:49:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.993, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sGXxstEMrfct for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:49:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D6621E8010 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 61112 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2012 02:49:18 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2012 02:49:18 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3b1d2e.xn--3zv.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=rVehuyUILGxR8ryXlOX3joZeyxrsLCODwUjOmVCsFcs=; b=IARHBIZUyvA1iSTZtE87ugebhfsvpSnbdpNM495d/nzKY0kQvcKcD+RULAiyudMveZbqp6/AQIENsV2dA+RgvxIEZfuA8PmCr/KjjztCw8pkE7XgBRUQDZsDWaIgLAazqnS98Kn+2ZTGyZbUiu/kkrFydbotMwQf3Nq6oEYXUpk= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 15 Feb 2012 02:48:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20120215024856.47638.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <0C2FD1E2-82FD-4F35-8FAC-3C1300384AC3@paypal.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Different protocols, was New new X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:49:21 -0000 >> Could someone please explain the nature of the bad in the third? Having written my share of WHOIS scrapers, I don't see the issue. It seems likely that we'll come up with something that uses RESTful HTTP queries and sends back JSON results, with a way to redirect queries, maybe using 302 responses, maybe something else. That's all fine, HTTP and JSON libraries are cheap and plentiful. Beyond that, there really isn't all that much in common between the questions you ask about IP addresses and the ones you ask about domain names. In the stuff I do, the application level stuff doing name queries is not the same as the stuff doing number queries, and the information I'm looking for in results isn't very similar either. For example, in name WHOIS, I'm often trying to figure out whether they're using a proxy registration. In number WHOIS, I'm trying to map multiple IP ranges and sometimes multiple ASNs to network operators. Nothing common there. I suppose that if the protocols are slightly different, it'd be slightly harder to write generic web WHOIS clients, but I can't very worked up about that. It's not a big deal. R's, John PS: >To the extent that protocol differences bleed into user experience, ... User experience? Do we complain about the user experience of BGP? From sm@resistor.net Tue Feb 14 21:05:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F294421F85CE for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:05:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.977, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IWCKaqZoVbWl for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7E521F8597 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1F55AlP000129 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:05:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329282315; i=@resistor.net; bh=l6fztuR6HhK5ggfw+eDBGvfzGOj8erYwOyGgm+dqxAs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=e5138jOCowSBwFewONjaos9U81lEZbejXz1DS1tIl5/N3U8pe2yGneW2htJ/6OXLO FQp48QxAGGwmO7ObQ5bruZmqqHRz158HoYsTHLzMMVO5R/RgCWIptt1G5jFVdespfq 2CAOYMKaBYgRrzunokV/fgPMDfn4ZWSI1y+g/bLM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329282315; i=@resistor.net; bh=l6fztuR6HhK5ggfw+eDBGvfzGOj8erYwOyGgm+dqxAs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=3k4SaaaG7nsaRgQjTwwAMCPNFWCKDdcz5cxxeEuLKHvXEUM1Tntme1vTUC/IELEfb v4mEsqJFZDfqqmjb0ElQZ3vBBIV3J/lLWtgvz0jXCk/OEVpEgL5xZ0k0z247PRjqEr 1ohdkHuQCNOLac3V8VYWyrIda1/LjWNAw5g3faaY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120214185430.060af518@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:55:36 -0800 To: weirds@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <012a01cceb19$9ddfa050$d99ee0f0$@mwyoung.ca> References: <20120214065335.1569.qmail@joyce.lan> <012a01cceb19$9ddfa050$d99ee0f0$@mwyoung.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter text (was: Another BoF in Paris?) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:05:19 -0000 At 05:07 14-02-2012, Michael Young wrote: >The timing is much better now to work on this problem, IDNs alone have According to a letter dated January 11, which I'll quote: "The current WHOIS system is hampered by an old prototype and little consensus on policy changes." "staff members have developed and recommended a solution for internationalized registration data. That proposal is being considered for adoption as a standard by the IETF." If it was simply a matter of timing, it should have been possible to reach consensus on policy changes or to adopt a solution. Quoting RFC 4690: "The whois protocol itself [RFC3912] has no standard capability for handling non-ASCII text: one cannot search consistently for, or report, either a DNS name or contact information that is not in ASCII characters. This may provide some additional impetus for a switch to IRIS" That did not happen. Regards, -sm From bje@apnic.net Tue Feb 14 23:11:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5630B21E802B for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:11:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpnvNukuKjgN for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146BC21F8603 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:11:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:4169:3fa9:293a:5202] (unknown [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:4169:3fa9:293a:5202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FA6B66B8; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:11:42 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:11:41 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7377A88F-0503-48CC-830E-7E59A5C67D5E@apnic.net> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:11:45 -0000 On 15/02/2012, at 10:50 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > As the charter discussion ebbs and flows between "numbers now, names = later" and "numbers now, names now", I couldn't help but get all teary = eyed thinking of the days when we use to do technical work in the IETF. = Ah, those were the days! >=20 > So I thought I'd spend a couple of minutes trying to answer the = question of just what a names protocol would look like using the same = approach that the RIRs have put forward in rir-query and rir-json. The = question of just how compatible the efforts would be would seem to rest = on just how amenable the names proponents are to following the example = and direction set by the RIRs. Sorry to be blunt about that, but I'm too = tired to find a more diplomatic way of putting it. >=20 > Using Steve Sheng's and Franciso Aria's dnrd draft as a basis, the = following queries would be removed: > http://whois.test/conact/CID-4005/ and = http://whois.test/host/ns1.example.test/ >=20 > Internet users lookup domain names. They have no idea which registry = to contact if they saw a naked contact ID or NS name in the wild. = rir-query takes the same approach. It only supports queries for = information that users would find in other contexts. >=20 > But relative queries would be supported, such as > http://whois.test/example.test/operator and = http://whois.test/example.test/operator/contacts/abuse >=20 > Similarly, the response(s) would have to align with the query = structure. The following is an example of a JSON response for = http://whois.test/example.test/ (where "entity" and "contacts" would = follow the entity object from rir-json): >=20 > { > "domain": { > "handle": "9690-TEST", > "name": "example.com", > "status": [ > "clientHold", > "clientRenewProhibited", > "clientUpdateProhibited" > ], > "registrationDate": "1992-07-26T09:10:56Z", > "expirationDate": "2019-01-21T10:11:18Z", > "remarks": [ > "she sells seas shells", > "down by the seashore" > ], > "uris": [ > { > "type": "source", > "uri": "http://whois.registry.example/domain/xxxx" > }, > =85=20 > ], > "nameServers": [ > "ns1.example.com", > "ns2.example.com" > ], > "delegationKeys": [{ > "algorithm": 7, > "digest": "E68C017BD813B9AE2F4DD28E61AD014F859ED44C", > "digestType": 1, > "keyTag": 53814 > }] > }, > "registrant": { > "entity": { =85 }, > "contacts": { > "tech": [ =85 ], > "admin": [ =85 ] > } > } > } >=20 > And that's basically it. Seems fairly straight forward to me. >=20 > Thoughts?=20 > Would a names proponent be willing to write this up more formally?=20 > Would anybody be willing to prototype it? = https://github.com/Byron-at-APNIC/Weirds-Experimental-Implementation-for-R= edirecting-Data-Output --=20 bje From andy@hxr.us Wed Feb 15 02:07:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE7421F8564 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zKuygZ6fRzqF for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63A721F87D0 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by pbcwz7 with SMTP id wz7so1353338pbc.31 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.221.137 with SMTP id qe9mr2075220pbc.71.1329300438267; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.10] (ip72-196-196-5.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.196.196.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm9699797pbo.4.2012.02.15.02.07.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:07:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <7377A88F-0503-48CC-830E-7E59A5C67D5E@apnic.net> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:07:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7377A88F-0503-48CC-830E-7E59A5C67D5E@apnic.net> To: Byron Ellacott X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQloYxyecg/nhbssX9WUI7DUrS6D5aBGDEJ9XFDGFZcRu/39qQ2ZM5b9QE/wF3RkzqrrZmPD Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:07:31 -0000 On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Byron Ellacott wrote: > = https://github.com/Byron-at-APNIC/Weirds-Experimental-Implementation-for-R= edirecting-Data-Output django.wsgi: sys.path.append('/usr/local/django/weirdo') I guess we should have seen that coming. :) We have a spec and we have an implementation. All we need now is an RFC = number. -andy= From dave.piscitello@icann.org Wed Feb 15 06:05:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9862321F8795 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:05:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7t4aQ3NFQ8N for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:05:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B74321F877F for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:05:08 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Francisco Obispo Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:05:08 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: Aczr6tNeHe8STVFcT5u2WxM3Pt1c6w== Message-ID: <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:05:23 -0000 If I understand Andy correctly, this was a JSON example. I don't read anything in his mail suggesting that JSON is on the table and = XML is off. What is required and what (how many) options is a matter for th= e working group to decide. However, I take your point that if the working g= roup chose JSON, some issues are created for namespaces. Personally, I think that choice is good. I'd like a client to be able to as= k for JSON, XML, other metalanguages, text and the provider can decide what= to serve up. Granted, normalization/transformation work would be necessar= y, but providing what the user wants sounds right to me. On Feb 14, 2012, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > I personally think JSON is the wrong approach for this protocol. >=20 > It lacks support for namespaces, (although some do it by adding a key wit= h the namespace). And although it is generally easy to parse, it does not h= ave the automatic formatting options (XSL, Stylesheets) that XML does. >=20 > I would much rather see JSON as an optional requirement, but instead use = XML as the main protocol encoding option. From carlosm3011@gmail.com Wed Feb 15 06:22:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB1F21F85D2 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:22:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xu61jffIn5h6 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD4121F85B9 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so1072501qan.10 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:22:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N5Ynz6GY7arjGdUe0Ob5MYrwMooHwrLFJn2wloC4wZM=; b=smkUw9iVMLbusnO7sQBkGzIRVno7wGxl7rVRu2B4sELwGbPF/Zsw8+5MhaIuv8cvMb b+4Ug8OM2VzcbL8wjzvxW8pWzUSlLry8RwbLcyJH8wLARd1bNWgnLhSTgeg3CcXSGHxc vLMume8u4CtaqZkNXN3ONpSU18UICwndGyLE8= Received: by 10.229.137.133 with SMTP id w5mr5755088qct.90.1329315720406; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm8sm10835783qab.18.2012.02.15.06.21.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:21:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3BBF83.40808@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:21:55 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Piscitello References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:22:05 -0000 A +1 for supporting multiple output formats, at least JSON and XML should be on the plate. Our reference implementation already does both of them plus human-oriented HTML as well, based on HTTP headers. ARIN's also supports DOS-like extensions like (.xml, .json). This is a point that needs standardizing (one can do both, it's not much of an effort) In fact the data model agreed should IMO be format-agnostic. I am not sure what would be the best way to write down such a spec, maybe we can spec an XML format and then have a JSON model that follows it. regards Carlos On 2/15/12 12:05 PM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > If I understand Andy correctly, this was a JSON example. > > I don't read anything in his mail suggesting that JSON is on the table and XML is off. What is required and what (how many) options is a matter for the working group to decide. However, I take your point that if the working group chose JSON, some issues are created for namespaces. > > Personally, I think that choice is good. I'd like a client to be able to ask for JSON, XML, other metalanguages, text and the provider can decide what to serve up. Granted, normalization/transformation work would be necessary, but providing what the user wants sounds right to me. > > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > >> I personally think JSON is the wrong approach for this protocol. >> >> It lacks support for namespaces, (although some do it by adding a key with the namespace). And although it is generally easy to parse, it does not have the automatic formatting options (XSL, Stylesheets) that XML does. >> >> I would much rather see JSON as an optional requirement, but instead use XML as the main protocol encoding option. > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@arin.net Wed Feb 15 06:25:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB2621F863F for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tDN9lJAO3sX3 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:25:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9A821F8675 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:25:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id B9B78165085; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C51165079; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:24:49 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.49] (10.1.0.49) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:25:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:25:00 -0500 From: Andy Newton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Piscitello References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.0.49] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:25:13 -0000 On 02/15/2012 09:05 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > If I understand Andy correctly, this was a JSON example. Actually, it is a proposal by example. > I don't read anything in his mail suggesting that JSON is on the table and XML is off. What is required and what (how many) options is a matter for the working group to decide. However, I take your point that if the working group chose JSON, some issues are created for namespaces. Not that XML is off the table, but the suggestion to use JSON is sincere. With regards to namespaces, if the names solution requires an interleaving multi-verse of namespaces, then it is a much different problem than the numbers solutions and therefore might warrant a separate protocol. (btw, I don't think the names solution requires an interleaving multi-verse of namespaces.) Modulo nit-picking of element names, etc... would the approach I have just outlined work for the names solution? -andy From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Wed Feb 15 06:43:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D109A21E801C for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:43:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U2C02JGNomj3 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6602521E8040 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:43:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from Gavins-iMac.local (fs-3.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net [82.68.174.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72AD712B8C; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:43:33 +0000 From: Gavin Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Newton References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> In-Reply-To: <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:43:47 -0000 On 15/02/2012 14:25, Andy Newton wrote: > With regards to namespaces, if the names solution requires an > interleaving multi-verse of namespaces, then it is a much different > problem than the numbers solutions and therefore might warrant a > separate protocol. (btw, I don't think the names solution requires an > interleaving multi-verse of namespaces.) I can see how it might, if we want to reuse RFC 5731-5733. Having a data model that's common to both EPP and the new protocol is a clear advantage. EPP's data model isn't sufficient here, but can be complemented by using an additional namespace. For example, a query for a domain name might return the equivalent of an EPP response, but with namespaced attributes containing hyperlinks for contact, registrar and host objects, eg: ns1.example.com ns1.example.com ClientX G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. From andy@arin.net Wed Feb 15 07:47:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26C821F8634 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a9yLcxC-5HwX for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EF421F8631 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 75694213643; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B12F2135F4; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:46:58 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.49] (10.1.0.49) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:09 -0500 From: Andy Newton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Brown References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.0.49] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:47:14 -0000 On 02/15/2012 09:43 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: > > I can see how it might, if we want to reuse RFC 5731-5733. Having a data > model that's common to both EPP and the new protocol is a clear advantage. It isn't clear to me. Not all domain registries use EPP. Same for the RIRs. As a user of the Internet, needing to understand EPP to do a whois query seems obnoxious. EPP is relevant in the context of registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for meta-data about a domain name. If EPP is necessary for the names solutions, then it is a much different beast than the numbers solution. -andy From francisco.arias@icann.org Wed Feb 15 07:56:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E89221F855E for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIRgF83LAVl6 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E820521F8587 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:55:59 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: Pete Resnick Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:00 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] New new proposed charter text Thread-Index: Aczr+k/TUDaAvMOZQ3eWeoRUbgtjzg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3AE283.5080106@qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] New new proposed charter text X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:56:07 -0000 On 2/14/12 2:38 PM, "Pete Resnick" wrote: >So, this is what I need explained to me: > >- If things go well (whether we "do it together" or we do it as "numbers >protocol with input from names"), all of the names issues are addressed >when we build the protocol and it is plug-and-play usable for names. >Everybody is happy. > >- If things go poorly under "do it together" idea, there is no protocol >for names and no protocol for numbers. Nobody is happy. > >- If things go poorly under the "incremental" idea, we end up with two >different protocols, maybe with one based on the other, but otherwise >incompatible. > >I understand the good in the first. I understand the bad in the second. >Could someone please explain the nature of the bad in the third? I >understand that it will take more time, and obviously more code will end >up being written (which are not good things), but are there other harms >that I'm not seeing? As others have said, the main problem would be to have two protocols that do pretty much the same. If there were an architect of the Internet, I bet would try to make it be one (but of course, there is none). I believe as others that the solution for names and numbers is most likely the same, at least in the base protocol. The difference can be left to exist on the data profile only. I'd think that if we see the likelihood of having the names and numbers agree on the same base protocol we should give it a try, instead of avoiding it. __ Francisco. From fobispo@isc.org Wed Feb 15 07:56:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A26821E8056 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qzrd6eoMTnAF for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161F621F855E for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876905F98B1; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:56:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52317216C6D; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:56:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:56:34 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:56:57 -0000 On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > On 02/15/2012 09:43 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: >>=20 >> I can see how it might, if we want to reuse RFC 5731-5733. Having a = data >> model that's common to both EPP and the new protocol is a clear = advantage. >=20 > It isn't clear to me. Not all domain registries use EPP. Same for the = RIRs. As a user of the Internet, needing to understand EPP to do a whois = query seems obnoxious. EPP is relevant in the context of = registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for meta-data = about a domain name. >=20 You don't need to understand EPP, the only thing that's necessary is for = the client to understand how to parse it and display it, in which case, = it would be no different than JSON, with the advantages described in my = other email. I believe what Gavin is suggesting is to re-use some of the data model = proposed in EPP to represent whois data.=20 We (ISC) are already working on a proposal that looks like this: example.tld fo1234 fo1234 fo1234 registrar_a 2010-09-03T10:47:46.6Z 2020-09-03T10:47:46.6Z 2010-09-04T05:03:30.0Z ns1.example.net ns2.example.net fo1234 John Doe Example Inc. 123 Example Dr. Suite 100 Dulles VA 20166-6503 US +1.7035555555 +1.7035555556 jdoe@example.com ClientY ClientX 1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z ClientX 1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z ns1.example.net 192.11.12.13 192.14.15.16 2001::A:B:C:1 ns2.example.com 192.1.2.3 192.4.5.6 2001::C:D:E:1 registrar_a Example Registrar Inc. As you can see, we are using a format that allows us to provide a = response, and some additional objects as necessary to complement it. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point? Francisco > If EPP is necessary for the names solutions, then it is a much = different beast than the numbers solution. >=20 > -andy > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From keith@blacknight.com Wed Feb 15 07:59:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFEA21E802A for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:59:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.116 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.517, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ys9pUCeotpaN for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:59:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCB021E800C for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:59:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id BF81F58325; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:59:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:59:20 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120215155920.GC24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:59:27 -0000 On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: > On 02/15/2012 09:43 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: > > > >I can see how it might, if we want to reuse RFC 5731-5733. Having a data > >model that's common to both EPP and the new protocol is a clear advantage. > > It isn't clear to me. Not all domain registries use EPP. Same for > the RIRs. As a user of the Internet, needing to understand EPP to do > a whois query seems obnoxious. EPP is relevant in the context of > registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for > meta-data about a domain name. It's hardly obnoxious, nor does it require an understanding of EPP. What Gavin's suggesting is that it's worth reusing the schemata for the various EPP object mappings, specifically those segments relating to responses to requests. This is actually very reasonable and very sensible and not at all difficult or complex to understand. > If EPP is necessary for the names solutions, then it is a much > different beast than the numbers solution. To be clear, Gavin isn't suggesting EPP, but the reuse of a number of object mappings for EPP. This is orthogonal to that discussion. RFC 5733, for instance, has a very reasonable way marking up contact information, and is thus specific not neither problem. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From francisco.arias@icann.org Wed Feb 15 08:01:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCE821E803C for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:01:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLGsCWo7Npof for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A17921E8020 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:01:35 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: Andy Newton Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:01:35 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: Aczr+xe7wYDT57jnRrGLZFJc7tn28Q== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:01:36 -0000 On 2/15/12 7:47 AM, "Andy Newton" wrote: >On 02/15/2012 09:43 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: >> >> I can see how it might, if we want to reuse RFC 5731-5733. Having a data >> model that's common to both EPP and the new protocol is a clear >>advantage. > >It isn't clear to me. Not all domain registries use EPP. Same for the >RIRs. As a user of the Internet, needing to understand EPP to do a whois >query seems obnoxious. Why?, it's just an XML schema as good or bas as any other. For the common user the registry could add a CSS so it can have human-friendly HTML. But as others have mentioned, that is likely outside the protocol. >EPP is relevant in the context of >registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for meta-data >about a domain name. EPP schemas are the low-hanging fruit to use in the data profile. I don't feel anywhere near strong about using them, just noting they are there to use if we wanted. >If EPP is necessary for the names solutions, then it is a much different >beast than the numbers solution. I miss to see the problem. The data schema/model is relevant in the context of the data profile, not the base protocol. I don't see how this affect the solution for the number registries. __ Francisco. From fobispo@isc.org Wed Feb 15 08:02:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C797421E8045 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:02:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBROOuVUxmZb for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1C021E8025 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01E9A5F9865; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:02:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E90A1216C6D; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:02:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <20120215155920.GC24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:02:09 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <20120215155920.GC24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> To: Keith Gaughan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:02:21 -0000 As you can see from my previous email, our implementation uses those = same identifiers as EPP, but does not reference the same XMLNS as EPP, = this is due to the fact that some of them may not apply to a whois = answer. Francisco On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > To be clear, Gavin isn't suggesting EPP, but the reuse of a number of = object > mappings for EPP. This is orthogonal to that discussion. RFC 5733, for = instance, > has a very reasonable way marking up contact information, and is thus = specific > not neither problem. From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 15 08:04:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D1B21F8715 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:04:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.922, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rUpydvJdJHLx for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9D921F8725 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 77944 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2012 16:04:09 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2012 16:04:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3bd779.xn--30v786c.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=6xByfKr5jHEBbrjj6A6q/Aq5R82hk8UVpljb9oCfpJo=; b=RsqIMCw8AI6887GzEuMdCxdFVWUJwYSbNRLl9vJ5W4TULey6DYrGfc83i8goi9WcPYbUY5WXA87KAueJEaByZqOTcscwg2KYqwffTuPzv4sGdzGPBxfg0klF8aYjuZ4Cc0qDp/dy34IemAd2CEls0WE7IY1z/zZ0BQUjGkzwdO4= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 15 Feb 2012 16:03:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20120215160347.77169.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4F3BBF83.40808@gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] what standards are, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:04:28 -0000 In article <4F3BBF83.40808@gmail.com> you write: >A +1 for supporting multiple output formats, at least JSON and XML >should be on the plate. A -99 for them. Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something, the goal for most of us here is to define a spec so that clients and servers can interoperate when retrieving the kind of data that we get via RIR WHOIS now, not a wish list for every possible bell and whistle anyone might want. The way you design a standard that works is to constrain it to the smallest set of features that will get the job done, which in this case is one query format, and one result format. If you want to provide beautifully formatted web pages for clients that don't ask for the standard result format (preferably JSON, but I could live with XML), you're welcome to do so, but there's nothing to interoperate there so it doesn't go in a spec. I can't imagine the IESG accepting a plan for open-ended formats, so I won't waste further time arguing against it. R's, John From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Wed Feb 15 08:06:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C169921F873B for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:06:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5L1qnKhxCi64 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2298F21F8738 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:05:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from Gavins-iMac.local (fs-3.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net [82.68.174.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375D3712B8C; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:05:53 +0000 From: Gavin Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Newton References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> In-Reply-To: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:06:06 -0000 On 15/02/2012 15:47, Andy Newton wrote: > On 02/15/2012 09:43 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: >> >> I can see how it might, if we want to reuse RFC 5731-5733. Having a data >> model that's common to both EPP and the new protocol is a clear >> advantage. > > It isn't clear to me. Not all domain registries use EPP. Same for the > RIRs. As a user of the Internet, needing to understand EPP to do a whois > query seems obnoxious. I don't see why an end user would ever need to see the XML or JSON sent between client and server. It had always seemed clear to me that the client would render the server response into something more human readable. Or do you browse the web in "view source" mode? > EPP is relevant in the context of > registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for meta-data > about a domain name. EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. From carlosm3011@gmail.com Wed Feb 15 08:22:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC4821F8571 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.953 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FYfQaXZiTDmW for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A1821F8570 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so1222718qan.10 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/ilUTeuBOwbdgvoj2chhjvL0Y/finKfElmdLqXvw/YM=; b=Y6WOP3askp6daj1mLMmq/5v/2s6Gvm0uQPzn5sNMWAQNbAjyUCRO91rNnyVH31lzDO FutkgJyIy7Xo0scMQJ1xWNQs8VZvpVVoJaPgFcw/GD5hTrhTzWvst7m7N9fqtTrw5VHc lKCv6wRYRDQZuoasqvmZ+jUe2ZBuOn0O0t0KM= Received: by 10.229.78.134 with SMTP id l6mr15444416qck.55.1329322972978; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g3sm11531371qap.2.2012.02.15.08.22.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3BDBD9.4000204@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:22:49 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120215160347.77169.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120215160347.77169.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] what standards are, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:22:57 -0000 My +1 was for the *possibility* of supporting multiple formats. I don't mean that every conceivable possibility has to fall in scope of the WG, and I certainly believe that human-oriented HTML should be definitely out. At least one format (XML preferably, due to the possibility of validating document structure), should be the authoritative one, and maybe the only one worth the time of this WG. JSON evidently has a strong following as well, so maybe it would also be a good idea to specify it. I agree with you that not every bell and whistle has to be included, and that KISS usually helps. But, as it stands now, every implementation will support multiple formats, so I think that yes, the *signalling* for indicating formats should be in scope. Since it all points out that we will be using REST, well, HTTP already does that for us, so maybe this boils down to a single paragraph saying "responses will be in the format specified by the Accept: header or will default to X" Carlos On 2/15/12 2:03 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article<4F3BBF83.40808@gmail.com> you write: >> A +1 for supporting multiple output formats, at least JSON and XML >> should be on the plate. > A -99 for them. Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something, the > goal for most of us here is to define a spec so that clients and > servers can interoperate when retrieving the kind of data that we get > via RIR WHOIS now, not a wish list for every possible bell and whistle > anyone might want. The way you design a standard that works is to > constrain it to the smallest set of features that will get the job > done, which in this case is one query format, and one result format. > > If you want to provide beautifully formatted web pages for clients > that don't ask for the standard result format (preferably JSON, but I > could live with XML), you're welcome to do so, but there's nothing to > interoperate there so it doesn't go in a spec. > > I can't imagine the IESG accepting a plan for open-ended formats, > so I won't waste further time arguing against it. > > R's, > John From andy@arin.net Wed Feb 15 08:44:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC3621E807C for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:44:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0ayoWWBsVAQ for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:44:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1A721E8040 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 4FC61165084; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFA0165065; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:44:19 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.49] (10.1.0.49) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:44:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:44:25 -0500 From: Andy Newton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Brown References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.1.0.49] Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:44:30 -0000 On 02/15/2012 11:05 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: > On 15/02/2012 15:47, Andy Newton wrote: >> EPP is relevant in the context of >> registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for meta-data >> about a domain name. > > EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of > that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response > formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid > reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. Given it took me all of 15 minutes to re-invent the wheel spec-wise and Byron not much longer to implement what I specified, I can't see how involving EPP helps in any way. Why create a dependency when none is needed? However my response seems to have uncovered a hidden requirement to use EPP from many names proponents, a requirement that departs from the approach taken from the rir drafts. It is also interesting to note that not a single response gave credence to my proposal. From this I cannot help but conclude that the names and numbers problems are separate and should be separate efforts. -andy From francisco.arias@icann.org Wed Feb 15 09:27:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF9521F8742 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:27:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E6Ip-uYNdnuA for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:27:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B203B21F8744 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:27:04 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: Andy Newton Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:27:04 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AczsBwmC4MUCGjtzTuOnOy5gdKF3cQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:27:11 -0000 On 2/15/12 8:44 AM, "Andy Newton" wrote: >However my response seems to have uncovered a hidden requirement to use >EPP from many names proponents, a requirement that departs from the >approach taken from the rir drafts. It is also interesting to note that >not a single response gave credence to my proposal. From this I cannot >help but conclude that the names and numbers problems are separate and >should be separate efforts. Hi Andy, Feeling too fast with the gun today? :-) I don't see such thing as a hidden requirement to use EPP. I for one, doesn't believe it. We based our data model schema on EPP's because it was there, but don't feel anywhere near strong about using it. By the way I see no problem in using the URI structure you propose, in principle. The URI structure used in our testbed was the simple one we came up with, no particular reason to have it. I'm happy to discuss your proposal. For the data profile, I do believe names and numbers would have each their own. But again, that's not in the base protocol, so no big deal. __ Francisco. From vesely@tana.it Wed Feb 15 09:51:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE0921E804F for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.644 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLRrRRbphdlx for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB66521E8025 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:51:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329328281; bh=Sd+T6BbB/GLP5jbBfcl4vwXRmfMXiHhATrTzZS47EH8=; l=549; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jJW7h787WOcZFIs9gx11zUZ8QSUx1psdb8TZMP2Ib+AQ25N/Wzc1SUreMC/7P+7h6 rmClhUfzhCb29UIcM1c1qDBkC6ECKX3JZXSETfhX3aUBlXv0Q4XgyRzTAyGoUr0wyr ZXggnuUWtkmPjez3HR7ULshspeFztihJJXlZMgSM= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:51:21 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000004F3BF099.000065F8 Message-ID: <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:51:21 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:51:28 -0000 On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: > > EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of > that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response > formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid > reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. What am I missing? From aservin@lacnic.net Wed Feb 15 10:01:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFB521F86EC for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:01:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.823 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.776, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GAjodf43Srp6 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CE421F86E8 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [200.7.85.190]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D6E30843C; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:00:40 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B84D1905-9068-47BD-A688-FF2560CB890E" From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:00:40 -0200 Message-Id: <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> To: Alessandro Vesely X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:01:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B84D1905-9068-47BD-A688-FF2560CB890E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Then you may have 4 verbs: , , It is unclear to me why we need 4 (at least for numbers) when it = seems that we can have a simpler approach: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00 Regards, .as =09 On 15 Feb 2012, at 15:51, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: >>=20 >> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of >> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response >> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid >> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. >=20 > Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that > if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be > possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. >=20 > What am I missing? > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --Apple-Mail=_B84D1905-9068-47BD-A688-FF2560CB890E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Then you may have 4 = verbs:

<check> = ,<info, <poll> = ,<transfer>

It is unclear to me why we need 4 = (at least for numbers) when it seems that we can have a simpler = approach:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00

Regards,
.as

=

On 15 Feb 2012, at 15:51, Alessandro Vesely = wrote:

On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote:

EPP provides a = data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware = of
that has seen even moderate = adoption. Reusing the <info> response
formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to = avoid
reinventing the wheel. = It should at least be a starting point.

Perhaps, EPP = is much more than a starting point.  It seems to me that
if we = modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be
possible = to use it instead of whois right away --mission = accomplished.

What am I = missing?
_______________________________________________
weirds = mailing list
weirds@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/weirds

= --Apple-Mail=_B84D1905-9068-47BD-A688-FF2560CB890E-- From vesely@tana.it Wed Feb 15 11:45:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE3C21E804E for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:45:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HyXzH-VtKWxM for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:45:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA3D21E8032 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:45:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329335122; bh=9rA2tUCKvVXZvUyJDOdMdfSpx0LWV3WZtANPtVQSNnY=; l=1478; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eAwj3WHRT3yZ8KC1crEP9cL0e99rnnjrpdgkEuvanCusc7Bc+SaQUmDPU79CEaF+w RbBIvCgfPS7vsfHJAySkV3u/gLt1Ob+hXPfcRf+0KFqWXDofg6SvKRhQcZYUymtH0T v9KsUGJ8UqeIiWnF7+pfHUDO9eNO04IQZWDc2oH4= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:45:22 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F3C0B52.000001BC Message-ID: <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:45:21 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> In-Reply-To: <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:45:28 -0000 On 15/Feb/12 19:00, Arturo Servin wrote: > On 15 Feb 2012, at 15:51, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: >>> >>> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of >>> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response >>> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid >>> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. >> >> Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that >> if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be >> possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. > > Then you may have 4 verbs: > > ,, , Anonymous EPP would probably allow only . And it would verify any elements to make sure it is not providing any more information than whois to anonymous clients. > It is unclear to me why we need 4 (at least for numbers) when it seems > that we can have a simpler approach: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00 The rir-query approach is only simpler for number resources, assuming that RIRs don't use EPP. Not reinventing the wheel is a deal. IOW, would you have developed rir-query if you had had EPP already up and running? Admittedly, these considerations don't go much toward a common solution. But I'm not clear on what a common "base protocol" would consist of, anyway. From carlosm3011@gmail.com Wed Feb 15 11:52:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC89B21F8547 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:52:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.534 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CwVcheq2HmV for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E9021F84F3 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so3452191qaf.10 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:52:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qh04DyjNgx9PJ+CX1OJUqH60vy8bH7Sg6ZgyEV4tKZo=; b=ikis8K/+7IoZlo+VhDstRzt+k+yM35GUgFM0fHHegGG7MtvBQ5ACPE2nvpGItefG91 ick4t2U7Hu1wmz8lKPDSJog9wm7XAKlSkX/AKiXgMxzAb2uuGTaImEuUNLXK1r+EUbIG 9IfsRWZFbfl8NB2TVcL26RtpGtAJTJgj8ZjLg= Received: by 10.229.111.165 with SMTP id s37mr16418458qcp.80.1329335560935; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm7sm12631458qab.5.2012.02.15.11.52.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:52:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:52:37 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alessandro Vesely References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:52:47 -0000 I thought all mentions to EPP referred only to re-using the data model (something I could agree to). Now that mentions of protocol operations appear I'm getting scared :-) IMO one of the greatest strengths of the REST approach is that users do not need specialized clients. Any browser, wget, curl, urllib2 will do. You can write a specialized client for some purpose, but you don't need to. If the proposal is to re-use EPP as a whole, then this is no longer the case. cheers Carlos On 2/15/12 5:45 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 15/Feb/12 19:00, Arturo Servin wrote: >> On 15 Feb 2012, at 15:51, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: >>>> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of >>>> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response >>>> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid >>>> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. >>> Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that >>> if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be >>> possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. >> Then you may have 4 verbs: >> >> ,,, > Anonymous EPP would probably allow only. And it would verify > any elements to make sure it is not providing any > more information than whois to anonymous clients. > >> It is unclear to me why we need 4 (at least for numbers) when it seems >> that we can have a simpler approach: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00 > The rir-query approach is only simpler for number resources, assuming > that RIRs don't use EPP. Not reinventing the wheel is a deal. IOW, > would you have developed rir-query if you had had EPP already up and > running? > > Admittedly, these considerations don't go much toward a common > solution. But I'm not clear on what a common "base protocol" would > consist of, anyway. > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From aservin@lacnic.net Wed Feb 15 11:56:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2335A21E808F for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:56:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.713 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.713 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EX-70cxr1tz5 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320B421E804E for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [200.7.85.190]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D07308445; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:56:06 -0200 (UYST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12FE5325-3DA5-4EA1-9AE3-30137C9D971C" From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:56:05 -0200 Message-Id: <78157150-AA32-4D96-802B-07411EEC484A@lacnic.net> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> To: Alessandro Vesely X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:56:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_12FE5325-3DA5-4EA1-9AE3-30137C9D971C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Alessandro, LACNIC does use EPP for interactions with the NIRs databases, we = use some EPP extensions (bottom of the link attached). We also have a = service call SARA to interact with ISPs with several assignments. http://lacnic.net/en/sara/ The data model for the EPP extensions I think is fine for a = bi-direccional service where you need to do more operations (create, = transfer, info, etc. However I find it a bit complex just for queries as = we need in restwhois. The answer to your question is: Yes. Regards, as =09 On 15 Feb 2012, at 17:45, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 15/Feb/12 19:00, Arturo Servin wrote: >> On 15 Feb 2012, at 15:51, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware = of >>>> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response >>>> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid >>>> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. >>>=20 >>> Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me = that >>> if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be >>> possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission = accomplished. >>=20 >> Then you may have 4 verbs: >>=20 >> ,, , >=20 > Anonymous EPP would probably allow only . And it would verify > any elements to make sure it is not providing any > more information than whois to anonymous clients. >=20 >> It is unclear to me why we need 4 (at least for numbers) when it = seems >> that we can have a simpler approach: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00 >=20 > The rir-query approach is only simpler for number resources, assuming > that RIRs don't use EPP. Not reinventing the wheel is a deal. IOW, > would you have developed rir-query if you had had EPP already up and > running? >=20 > Admittedly, these considerations don't go much toward a common > solution. But I'm not clear on what a common "base protocol" would > consist of, anyway. > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --Apple-Mail=_12FE5325-3DA5-4EA1-9AE3-30137C9D971C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii LACNIC does use EPP for = interactions with the NIRs databases, we use some EPP extensions (bottom = of the link attached). We also have a service call SARA to interact with = ISPs with several assignments.


The data model for the EPP = extensions I think is fine for a bi-direccional service where you need = to do more operations (create, transfer, info, etc. However I find it a = bit complex just for queries as we need in = restwhois.

The answer to your question is: = Yes.

Regards,
as

=
On 15 Feb 2012, at 17:45, Alessandro Vesely = wrote:

On 15/Feb/12 19:00, Arturo Servin = wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 15:51, Alessandro = Vesely wrote:
On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown = wrote:

EPP = provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware = of
that = has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the <info> = response
formats = from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to = avoid
reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting = point.

Perhaps, EPP is much more than a = starting point.  It seems to me = that
if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it = would be
possible to use it instead of = whois right away --mission = accomplished.

Then you may = have 4 verbs:

<check> = ,<info>, <poll>, = <transfer>

Anonymous EPP would probably allow = only <info>.  And it would verify
any = <contact:disclose> elements to make sure it is not providing = any
more information than whois to anonymous = clients.

It is unclear to me why we = need 4 (at least for numbers) when it seems
that we can have a simpler = approach:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query-00
=

The rir-query approach is only simpler for number = resources, assuming
that RIRs don't use EPP.  Not reinventing = the wheel is a deal.  IOW,
would you have developed rir-query if = you had had EPP already up and
running?

Admittedly, these = considerations don't go much toward a common
solution.  But I'm = not clear on what a common "base protocol" would
consist of, = anyway.
_______________________________________________
weirds = mailing list
weirds@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/weirds

= --Apple-Mail=_12FE5325-3DA5-4EA1-9AE3-30137C9D971C-- From dave.piscitello@icann.org Wed Feb 15 12:55:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A94421E80A4 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:55:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N+BGdoCTXG0T for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C4421E8086 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:55:19 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andy Newton Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:55:18 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AczsJCB/J0iTVbjrSYGDTLvP2rPYYg== Message-ID: <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> In-Reply-To: <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:55:27 -0000 On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > On 02/15/2012 11:05 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: >> On 15/02/2012 15:47, Andy Newton wrote: >>> EPP is relevant in the context of >>> registry-registrar transactions and is not needed to query for meta-dat= a >>> about a domain name. >>=20 >> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of >> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response >> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid >> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. >=20 > Given it took me all of 15 minutes to re-invent the wheel spec-wise and=20 > Byron not much longer to implement what I specified, I can't see how=20 > involving EPP helps in any way. Why create a dependency when none is need= ed? >=20 > However my response seems to have uncovered a hidden requirement to use=20 > EPP from many names proponents, a requirement that departs from the=20 > approach taken from the rir drafts. It is also interesting to note that=20 > not a single response gave credence to my proposal. From this I cannot=20 > help but conclude that the names and numbers problems are separate and=20 > should be separate efforts. My bad. Please don't hate me for being old and slow All these brackets and = such look the same after a while.:-) I don't have an issue with your proposal. I'd like to leave the issue of JS= ON, XML or support for both to people who are consuming the data. So long a= s it's clearly distinguished in signaling, I think it's up to the provider = to decide what its customers want and then decide how much they can accommo= date of what customers want.=20 From sm@resistor.net Wed Feb 15 13:52:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B314921E803D for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:52:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.633 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hb+J2WDNKD9B for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154A421E8032 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1FLpoWS005775; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:51:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329342715; i=@resistor.net; bh=xp/VfooGEu5WOagHkWB9CjZ37gHytUlspSAHm03oTIw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=rZOl5Xzdqf2r2pRoi1WCjQkhsvhGtgMk95YCLd0ETxamDzilzqA3MFmpr6hAkfdKf WWMDjh4i/yN170qct/ATQrn+bbDQKm4q3H71DRI8vIOK2o+odQrjE7pJMoMRO9sWQE kPpic43kmLOPxRx+fYN08Wxfr2pQfv33C4A3p61c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329342715; i=@resistor.net; bh=xp/VfooGEu5WOagHkWB9CjZ37gHytUlspSAHm03oTIw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=1/ZBrvab4zPsSONIRLimuBMk0JAfYbJi7oB76laOTNKOi6MZpqp192AXRR8KWP/yw ZrK6PAOZx09jdIu4EVlPWlgnS0m+VsI5JzAOU339dPG9/v3ngbrsxVnRpEz0lJyk+Q BLSdri42AUAOftSunJh2cMtgrMRT+lbshc+2qcRI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:39:58 -0800 To: Dave Piscitello From: SM In-Reply-To: <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:52:23 -0000 Hi Dave, At 12:55 15-02-2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >I don't have an issue with your proposal. I'd like to leave the >issue of JSON, XML or support for both to people who are consuming >the data. So long as it's clearly distinguished in signaling, I >think it's up to the provider to decide what its customers want and >then decide how much they can accommodate of what customers want. I don't have an opinion about whether to pick JSON or XML. I am ok with the provider deciding on what to serve their customers. If there are several data formats, the consumer will have to implement each of them. John Levine commented [1] on open-ended formats. The producers here are: (a) Number resources registries (and others) (b) ccTLDs (c) gTLDs (d) ICANN Would specifying one mandatory format be something ICANN can work out with the gTLDs? The alternative is for a future working group to determine that. Given the diverse constituencies, it might end up being a problematic decision. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg00558.html From keith@blacknight.com Thu Feb 16 02:50:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0229221F8794 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:50:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.504, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCcsSIglnd-C for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:50:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D0F21F86FF for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:50:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 120BE58327; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:50:04 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:50:04 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:50:15 -0000 On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:51:21PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: > > > > EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of > > that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response > > formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid > > reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. > > Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that > if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be > possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. > > What am I missing? That could work, though it does go against some of the stated aims of WEIRDS (RESTful WHOIS, that is). As the provreg list is currently active again, and I'm sure nobody there would mind terribly if further useful object mappings were added. It's at least an avenue worth exploring. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From keith@blacknight.com Thu Feb 16 03:01:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFB221F87BA for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:01:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.491, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxL4Sol83zsi for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:01:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F8121F87B0 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:01:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 381AF58327; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:01:42 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:01:42 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:01:48 -0000 On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:52:37PM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > I thought all mentions to EPP referred only to re-using the data > model (something I could agree to). Now that mentions of protocol > operations appear I'm getting scared :-) > > IMO one of the greatest strengths of the REST approach is that users > do not need specialized clients. Any browser, wget, curl, urllib2 > will do. You can write a specialized client for some purpose, but > you don't need to. I wouldn't be too scared. EPP is hardly rocket science. The default TCP transport is simple, and building requests and parsing their results isn't difficult either. One of the big problems with IRIS/DCHK/DREG was that the whole agglomeration was so very complex, from the RFC 4993 UDP transport, right up to the top of the stack. EPP isn't anywhere near as much of a pain to implement. Moreover, the problem set we're exploring does fit into the scope of EPP, specifically: [A] [...] protocol for the provisioning and management of objects stored in a shared central repository. Which can and does include querying for those objects within its scope. Now, I'm *not* saying we should use EPP, but at the very least it's an idea worth exploring. > If the proposal is to re-use EPP as a whole, then this is no longer > the case. K. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From dave.piscitello@icann.org Thu Feb 16 05:09:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5042B21F861D for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lVTDeGEGXjTi for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B037121F850F for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:04 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: SM Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:04 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AczsrCghB9WRcsNkSI6qYdAj1/vnFg== Message-ID: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:09:08 -0000 On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:39 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Dave, > At 12:55 15-02-2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >> I don't have an issue with your proposal. I'd like to leave the=20 >> issue of JSON, XML or support for both to people who are consuming=20 >> the data. So long as it's clearly distinguished in signaling, I=20 >> think it's up to the provider to decide what its customers want and=20 >> then decide how much they can accommodate of what customers want. >=20 > I don't have an opinion about whether to pick JSON or XML. I am ok=20 > with the provider deciding on what to serve their customers. If=20 > there are several data formats, the consumer will have to implement=20 > each of them. John Levine commented [1] on open-ended formats. It's the web. We have lots of data formats and we haven't seen the last of = them. I'm not suggesting that every dat format is in play *and* mandatory. = I'm OK with choosing a single mandatory/default and I'm even happy to let o= thers make a reasoned decision as to what format this is. If the protocol identifies a mandatory/default data format and accommodates= optional formats in signaling then it would look quite a bit like what ARI= N has in production today, no? I'm merely pointing out that data format choice and selection aren't solely= technical decisions when you already have multiple APIs and data formats. = Is there is harm in identifying a standard signaling mechanism for data for= mats in the protocol?=20 >=20 > Would specifying one mandatory format be something ICANN can work out=20 > with the gTLDs? I think so. A possible path forward is that technical folks in a group like= SSAC would develop and propose the set of data that satisfy what Jim Galvi= n calls a "domain name life cycle" and possibly recommend or define a data = format. That data set and format would be submitted for community review. I= f this effects contracts then it falls into a policy development process bu= t the contracts could then oblige contracted parties to use the mandatory f= ormat. ccTLDs that participate in ICANN's CCNSO could agree to adopt the same mand= atory format through their own processes.=20 >=20 > The alternative is for a future working group to determine=20 > that. Given the diverse constituencies, it might end up being a=20 > problematic decision. Replace "might" with "would" and I agree.= From dave.piscitello@icann.org Thu Feb 16 05:18:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2BD21F8783 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:18:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id diyIL04OpWmR for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B6721F877D for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:18:38 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Keith Gaughan Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:18:37 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AczsrX5g+yGbSYKBTx2cvVcSmbNVVQ== Message-ID: <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> References: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:18:39 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:52:37PM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: >=20 >> I thought all mentions to EPP referred only to re-using the data >> model (something I could agree to). This was my understanding, too. >> Now that mentions of protocol >> operations appear I'm getting scared :-) I think this takes us off track. >> IMO one of the greatest strengths of the REST approach is that users >> do not need specialized clients. Any browser, wget, curl, urllib2 >> will do. You can write a specialized client for some purpose, but >> you don't need to. At least for name resources, this is an important strength. Registrars, for= example, are contractually obliged to provide web access. The user communi= ty is accustomed to this interface.=20 > I wouldn't be too scared. EPP is hardly rocket science. The default TCP > transport is simple, and building requests and parsing their resul= ts > isn't difficult either. It really isn't strictly a matter of how easy or difficult it is to write a= new client.=20 For name resources at least, I'd prefer to take a thoughtful look at the se= veral domain name registration data models and definitions that exist today= (EPP the RAA, escrow=85), consider internationalization, decide what dat= a format is desired as mandatory, and then produce the data profile. From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 16 09:35:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762BB21F86D5 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:35:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNUp51qjgnTs for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:35:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BCF21F8700 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:35:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1GHYu2t009033; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:35:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329413703; i=@resistor.net; bh=34oKsVqCKuPkXPlX7mslKvHDajjkkin4VptexNfUOqQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=rP+OLgZvyFOviMOSt4CZHIrLvnCFYCV7E/eOWZRqfk57vVGIcl9+Vmy0uLlN6Y8ui 4ARxGzLTzfr+lG2ELO8RyOoS/L2c8rZIErMDkT/Bj5vbi97c8LvAeM+1mxYy6ucV3r D3iIvG073vUsME8Knysw6f/EAS95fZWFOADCWoU0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329413703; i=@resistor.net; bh=34oKsVqCKuPkXPlX7mslKvHDajjkkin4VptexNfUOqQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=wVtdJnDHu51FzUj+H3AqovorYzZstAIH+ItGF2JbmPQwf4Yl7pdD0jEjouvUzRGIo skQajiovOOlAq3sr9W0EjZ/8XJhLAIZj7qpSpMLRTOtAF8scJj0D8XmyzoOOot9uIy 9kKtV7X5loq942cO9R7WDU5YcavLW8EuxRTlAffU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216082450.08c6be80@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:34:55 -0800 To: Dave Piscitello From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:35:30 -0000 Hi Dave, At 05:09 16-02-2012, Dave Piscitello wrote: >If the protocol identifies a mandatory/default data format and >accommodates optional formats in signaling then it would look quite >a bit like what ARIN has in production today, no? I'll leave it to a better informed party to comment on the above. >I'm merely pointing out that data format choice and selection aren't >solely technical decisions when you already have multiple APIs and >data formats. Is there is harm in It's rarely an easy choice. > identifying a standard signaling mechanism for data formats in the protocol? There is generally someone in the IETF which will find something harmful. :-) If one of more data formats are to be supported, the protocol would need a signaling mechanism. >I think so. A possible path forward is that technical folks in a >group like SSAC would develop and propose the set of data that >satisfy what Jim Galvin calls a "domain name life cycle" and >possibly recommend or define a data format. That data set and format >would be submitted for community review. If this effects contracts >then it falls into a policy development process but the contracts >could then oblige contracted parties to use the mandatory format. The data set and data format could end up as out of scope then. >ccTLDs that participate in ICANN's CCNSO could agree to adopt the >same mandatory format through their own processes. Ok. Such points end up as "would" (re: last comment in your reply). It helps when "paths forward" are stated in a charter. The groups do not have to be explicitly mentioned unless there is a coordination mechanism in place. Regards, -sm From francisco.arias@icann.org Thu Feb 16 09:55:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2636321F8834 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:55:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFlk9gNdjAA5 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A051D21F87EC for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:55:56 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: SM Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:55:54 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: Aczs1DuxBaJPlt7uQp2XEnADtpdkrQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216082450.08c6be80@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:55:58 -0000 Hi SM, On 2/16/12 9:34 AM, "SM" wrote: >>I think so. A possible path forward is that technical folks in a >>group like SSAC would develop and propose the set of data that >>satisfy what Jim Galvin calls a "domain name life cycle" and >>possibly recommend or define a data format. That data set and format >>would be submitted for community review. If this effects contracts >>then it falls into a policy development process but the contracts >>could then oblige contracted parties to use the mandatory format. > >The data set and data format could end up as out of scope then. The data set (which fields are required) is a policy matter for each registry's policy-maker body to decide. However, the format (e.g., the tag (if there is one), attributes, the syntax) of the possible fields is something that should be standardized and as such be in scope. If there is a field that could be used in the protocol, we should define its format. In other words, we should standardize the "dictionary" of possible fields (for some definition of possible), but what fields are served in a server response is outside the protocol. Regards, __ Francisco. From vesely@tana.it Thu Feb 16 11:38:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A6D21F86EC for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:38:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RO6hO3zmb3m3 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285EA21F880D for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:38:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329421104; bh=yTupZBeDHMJLq/+tzcVrGJzzIUkrpfsREGtmLAYMVCQ=; l=2180; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XRkSVcjMgWnmOLg82rkyDqqJi28mcGG6hsGXvtNKFtxbsE34eaTWFtXVPixjP5Nge eswy6YrHQKmG8kxxwTWqnDcqxPqz2JMTaDMOCRQjjO45JnmbzYasn+0q9H4aqPljhN g8D7yJDtGBTm0DI0fpdMaFp6mLMCot8fdd6rJ954= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:38:24 +0100 id 00000000005DC03F.000000004F3D5B30.000054EF Message-ID: <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:38:24 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:38:31 -0000 On 16/Feb/12 11:50, Keith Gaughan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:51:21PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: >>> >>> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware of >>> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response >>> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid >>> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. >> >> Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that >> if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be >> possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. >> >> What am I missing? > > That could work, though it does go against some of the stated aims of WEIRDS > (RESTful WHOIS, that is). As the provreg list is currently active again, and I'm > sure nobody there would mind terribly if further useful object mappings were > added. It's at least an avenue worth exploring. PROVREG had a BoF in Dec 2000 and terminated in Jan 2004. That seems to be just before CRISP started, but that's not enough to explain why those protocols ignored one another. I participated in neither, so I change the subject to catch the attention of someone who participated in both, e.g. Scott. Provisioning implies updating a DB. Browsing that data doesn't seem to have ever been an issue for EPP. That protocol is designed to be extensible with respect to the data model, not the access model. However, from a software POV, it is usually convenient to use the same API and shared chunks of code for both updating and browsing. So, it is natural to think that someone who is familiar with an EPP implementation could easily derive an utility for querying that data from it. I'd feel uncomfortable with pursuing WEIRDS for names without having checked out why that's not true. CRISP's charter explicitly excluded provisioning. Although it addresses the same registry data, it didn't seem to want to reuse the same data models. Interaction between IRIS and EPP was asked in 2008 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/crisp/current/msg00496.html but not answered. From fobispo@isc.org Thu Feb 16 11:49:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C1C21E8094 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:49:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DgVJvFO4PPIP for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDA021E807B for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A5195F98B1; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:48:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3734216C6B; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:48:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:48:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> To: Alessandro Vesely X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:49:15 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Provisioning implies updating a DB. Browsing that data doesn't seem > to have ever been an issue for EPP. That protocol is designed to be > extensible with respect to the data model, not the access model. > Well, the access model is actually not part of EPP.. the widely used EPP Transport over TCP is a totally different RFC [1]. I personally don't feel like EPP would fit the requirements of a whois protocol. Although there is functionality that is fairly similar, there is a whole bunch of separate issues that include access control, policy, and transactions that would not apply to whois systems. > However, from a software POV, it is usually convenient to use the same > API and shared chunks of code for both updating and browsing. > So, it is natural to think that someone who is familiar with an EPP > implementation could easily derive an utility for querying that data > from it. I'd feel uncomfortable with pursuing WEIRDS for names > without having checked out why that's not true. If someone is capable of understanding EPP, and its data structures, it would not have any trouble understanding an XML document with a response. And if we go the RESTful route, it would be even easier, since there are tons of libraries out there to query HTTP/HTTPS servers [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5734 Francisco Obispo email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE From andy@arin.net Thu Feb 16 11:50:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89DD21E80A5 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:50:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AuEm7k0y6t27 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:50:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB82221E809D for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 517D6213628; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8325213596; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.19) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:13 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:25 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: Dave Piscitello Thread-Topic: data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) Thread-Index: AQHM7OQ5jW2RaTYhiUyd4XLOwCUhuQ== Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:50:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <338D038B2AEB6F4A80C5EA4D5F35C637@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:50:28 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > It's the web. We have lots of data formats and we haven't seen the last o= f them. I'm not suggesting that every dat format is in play *and* mandatory= . I'm OK with choosing a single mandatory/default and I'm even happy to let= others make a reasoned decision as to what format this is. >=20 > If the protocol identifies a mandatory/default data format and accommodat= es optional formats in signaling then it would look quite a bit like what A= RIN has in production today, no? Yes, ARIN's RESTful Whois service hands back multiple formats. As I see it, there are two large issues here: computer to computer data mar= shaling, and browsability (for lack of a better name). They each have diff= ering needs. For computer to computer data interchange, there needs to be a mandatory fo= rmat otherwise we make the job of the client implementers much harder. Ther= e are a few qualities we should look for in that single format: 1) it shoul= dn't be something we have to invent, 2) it should be easy to find a parser = for it; the more client environments it targets, the better, 3) it should b= e simple, and 4) our resulting use of it should not be awkward or invoke an= y unnecessary features. For browsability, we want to be able to use a RESTful URL in a browser and = have data displayed that doesn't require a programmer to interpret. There a= re many ways of doing, the most common being HTML. XML has other advantages= , but they quickly become cumbersome with every new "feature" added to the = dataset. -andy= From andy@arin.net Thu Feb 16 11:59:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E9121E80B3 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:59:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3zlfbGbIvpm for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2686221E8096 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id C5BE1213679; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E89621365A; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:59:18 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:59:34 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: Dave Piscitello Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AQHM63vOXM7UroBXsEqjdKkeDMHDJZY9ddiAgADcpwD//7G8AIAAWQCA//+984CAAFkOgIAAHXiAgAACmgCAAB1AgIAAAgeAgAD9/wCAACZBgIAAcAYA Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:59:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <31F1F2728CCA3A49B0D9C8C031E557CE@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:59:51 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: > It really isn't strictly a matter of how easy or difficult it is to write= a new client.=20 The ease of writing a new client or of using an existing one such as a web = browser or wget should be a large consideration. The notion that re-using EPP is easy is from the point of view people who a= lready have EPP servers and does not consider implementers writing clients = for the Internet at large. I'd prefer we place words in the charter that restrict this working group t= o RESTful web services. Such words would put EPP out of scope as well as th= e sure-to-come proposals for SOAP, ssh-channels, SNMP, etc=85 -andy= From fobispo@isc.org Thu Feb 16 12:01:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A7321E80B7 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:01:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1IZ51ZgtPFE3 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BDA21E80B3 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3AB7C9423; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:01:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from fobispo-mbp.lan (c-67-188-135-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.135.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A9F6216C6B; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:01:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:01:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <67D55631-617C-43A7-BF20-368D1B6A7245@isc.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:01:36 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > XML has other advantages, but they quickly become cumbersome with = every new "feature" added to the dataset. The most frequent problem I find with XML processing is when programmers = don't follow the rules to parse XML. I've even seen people using sed/awk = scripts to parse them=85 Like I said in my previous email, I think XML is the right tool for the = job here. Francisco Obispo=20 email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC PGP KeyID =3D B38DB1BE From carlosm3011@gmail.com Thu Feb 16 12:07:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F2821E80F4 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:07:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.587, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PfKyex3kDMwT for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:07:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D836D21E804E for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnq2 with SMTP id q2so1711720ggn.31 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:07:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZB1uJvaSwnWpfJMYcT7wU3NQ7NzcDzlloMMgKHxPFzc=; b=fdlBLLphOdR359GGE78dbIVHkk7i9FzsRFJu5HAwK1ZXeGLJnnNP19gnxl1ae6RVoH ioheoHB/f+njA9ivywejLWrqe0gQY5z412MUK8MWVYkhiH0lzfGdfyqB8RKEFksPeSX4 ymaqyeWoU5YW/AVKE3Fca3yp9ZCgGQLqhL4eI= Received: by 10.236.173.132 with SMTP id v4mr5511656yhl.78.1329422821429; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b9sm11035744and.20.2012.02.16.12.06.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:07:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:06:57 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "weirds@ietf.org" References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> <67D55631-617C-43A7-BF20-368D1B6A7245@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <67D55631-617C-43A7-BF20-368D1B6A7245@isc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:07:06 -0000 I agree that XML is the right tool. JSON support is also *very* desirable. However, IMO, plain access using a non-specialized client is a MUST in my opinion. The good thing is that this is easy to achieve as long as we stick to HTTP transport, either by using XSLT sheets or other mechanisms. I don't think we can ask our communities to do XML programming in order to access the registry database. The good thing is that we have all the tools in our hands to produce something that can cater both the folks doing machine processing of WHOIS data and also the browser-access crowd. regards Carlos On 2/16/12 6:01 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > >> XML has other advantages, but they quickly become cumbersome with every new "feature" added to the dataset. > > The most frequent problem I find with XML processing is when programmers don't follow the rules to parse XML. I've even seen people using sed/awk scripts to parse them… > > Like I said in my previous email, I think XML is the right tool for the job here. > > Francisco Obispo > email: fobispo@isc.org > Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC > PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE > > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Feb 16 12:08:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBB421E80EE for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwWmoLbUV4l5 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199B721E804E for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:12 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:12 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:11 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AQHM63vOXM7UroBXsEqjdKkeDMHDJZY9ddiAgADcpwD//7G8AIAAWQCA//+984CAAFkOgIAAHXiAgAACmgCAAB1AgIAAAgeAgAD9/wCAACZBgIAAcAYA//+sfHA= Message-ID: References: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:08:13 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Andy Newton > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:00 PM > To: Dave Piscitello > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all >=20 > The ease of writing a new client or of using an existing one such as a > web browser or wget should be a large consideration. >=20 > The notion that re-using EPP is easy is from the point of view people > who already have EPP servers and does not consider implementers writing > clients for the Internet at large. >=20 > I'd prefer we place words in the charter that restrict this working > group to RESTful web services. Such words would put EPP out of scope as > well as the sure-to-come proposals for SOAP, ssh-channels, SNMP, etc... EPP's not a term with which I'm familiar, so I just read the Wikipedia page= on it. Assuming it's accurate, it looks like it's meant for use for commu= nicating between registries and registrars. I hadn't really considered tha= t application before; I thought we were talking only about servicing arbitr= ary queries from end users (or their agents). That means EPP and its ilk a= ren't within the scope I thought we were trying to cover. So I'd support Andy's suggestion. Since CRISP (RFC3707) did consider EPP-l= ike issues, we probably should make it clear if we want to avoid that for t= his round. -MSK From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 16 12:29:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3468D21F86A3 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:29:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.308 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.891, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBvz0xzgRVwG for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:29:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B1F21F86A0 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:29:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 41085 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2012 20:29:50 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2012 20:29:50 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3d673d.xn--9vv.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=dTHOTOnil79CblZF9C2RRV2lxnTyA/w6yKULJQS02JA=; b=W9+XH/ZigVkXbYtvtwA7MD/eNKo8j9lF9vpiJaB5EuwjyBLE/1+fJuxftyOqZXbFl97OJJ2RX2nJsOGBPP3sg/dFAYP4D3Yvz/sF0DshgCfDY974M7RgtBPv40MJMlzAffEC34H/MrVzdbbp7l2bS5HpSfPsu2vHgfG8n/zBcdU= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 16 Feb 2012 20:29:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:29:56 -0000 In article <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> you write: >I agree that XML is the right tool. JSON support is also *very* >desirable. I prefer JSON, but whatever. > However, IMO, plain access using a non-specialized client is >a MUST in my opinion. -99, for reasons that I'd think would be obvious to anyone who's ever done standards development. SMTP isn't browsable. POP isn't browsable. BGP isn't browsable. TELNET isn't browsable. SIP isn't browsable. They're accesed via clients that understand the formats. If you want to build debugging tools to look at the data, that's a fine idea, but don't demand them as part of the spec. >The good thing is that this is easy to achieve as long as we stick to >HTTP transport, either by using XSLT sheets or other mechanisms. I don't speak Chinese. Do Chinese RIRs have to provide everything in English? Conversely, do North American RIRs have to provide everything in Chinese? Being able to browse something isn't worth much if I can't understand the results. If the answer is, it doesn't matter if you can't understand them, you can see what the data is, why doesn't that apply equally to JSON or XML results, which are 100% text that any browser can display? >I don't think we can ask our communities to do XML programming in order >to access the registry database. I still prefer JSON, but XML libraries are cheap and plentiful. If we choose XML, generating and parsing it is an insignificant part of the programming effort. R's, John From sm@resistor.net Thu Feb 16 12:33:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138EA21F8570 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:33:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7YWvg4f08Y2u for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C9021F8589 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1GKWViL012691; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:32:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329424356; i=@resistor.net; bh=flko4fWR9mGbIN20pZnIG/vN6hEvfiMvOI+1SiWqcKw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=1wBGPmBUbYPh2eF20F+yJHFlx8vbPR8+LClDeh9iuL/ja+ze7s5LN9pZUcbQ2w60N 94tIU3B6FloaV8Q1JN+nJJve43/2weEG3DFHgCvrVXv0T/oiuad8QCkeYxJLhm0X+Y kacJFvZ6RA1aVOdwrgy7Aomg789Y2bW7MAT8GeUI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329424356; i=@resistor.net; bh=flko4fWR9mGbIN20pZnIG/vN6hEvfiMvOI+1SiWqcKw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=2Lo2X1EPqlp0DveXFLzqv6kuIBwokgSPBeygX0Z+HqOJDq0837tqbUv0bBzXaZ0O4 Jdol+Us5Da7N38yWnAnh2mKszWLXm9WX9OTl8V6NZv/dy4R6rBUBVAoSdf/xl2Nyb8 efDt7k8TPmVi3Jh07Sr/uDn8ttKpZJYTGoyndx+Q= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216120943.08a165d8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:20:22 -0800 To: Francisco Arias From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216082450.08c6be80@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:33:04 -0000 Hi Francisco, At 09:55 16-02-2012, Francisco Arias wrote: >However, the format (e.g., the tag (if there is one), attributes, the >syntax) of the possible fields is something that should be standardized >and as such be in scope. If there is a field that could be used in the >protocol, we should define its format. > >In other words, we should standardize the "dictionary" of possible fields >(for some definition of possible), but what fields are served in a server >response is outside the protocol. I am ok with the above. I suggest putting what's out of scope into the charter. Regards, -sm From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu Feb 16 13:24:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826CB21E801C for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:24:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qm4itk-1Hvcs for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:24:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from pdx-1.yitter.info (unknown [174.140.166.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298E121E801B for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com) by pdx-1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BDEEA35809F for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:24:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:24:03 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> References: <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:24:07 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:59:34PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: > I'd prefer we place words in the charter that restrict this working > group to RESTful web services. That was the goal of this text: The overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST It's not a restriction, but I think it offers a pretty strong suggestion. Besides, I don't know why we're talking about EPP when the very idea that EPP is any sort of basic standard that everyone adheres to is wrong on its face. Many name registries don't use it (partly because of disagreements about the data model), some number resource registries don't use it, and many name registries use an alternative mapping from the "standard" one because they also don't like the data model. I have no objection to looking at EPP for inspiration. But the idea that the EPP mappings are going to be the basis of work strikes me as wrong. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Feb 16 15:59:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519B421E8050 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y931b8N6-sDh for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE6A21E804B for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTz2YXshn5OBUgrieb3xO2SdAFTmh1XqT@postini.com; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:28 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q1GNxMiR029859; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:59:25 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.139]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:59:22 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.206]) by dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:59:21 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:59:20 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AQHM7JpdJ0iTVbjrSYGDTLvP2rPYYpY/1ZiAgABwBgCAAAJogP//6aSg Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:59:20 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D59E7B9@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2012 23:59:21.0820 (UTC) FILETIME=[00A3F1C0:01CCED07] Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:59:29 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:08 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all [snip] > EPP's not a term with which I'm familiar, so I just read the Wikipedia > page on it. Assuming it's accurate, it looks like it's meant for use > for communicating between registries and registrars. I hadn't really > considered that application before; I thought we were talking only > about servicing arbitrary queries from end users (or their agents). > That means EPP and its ilk aren't within the scope I thought we were > trying to cover. >=20 > So I'd support Andy's suggestion. Since CRISP (RFC3707) did consider > EPP-like issues, we probably should make it clear if we want to avoid > that for this round. I don't disagree with your conclusion (in fact, I agree), but I think you w= ere misled on your path to reaching it. RFC 5730 would be a better read than the Wikipedia article. As noted in bot= h places, the core EPP protocol was *not* designed for exclusive use by dom= ain name registries and registrars. Their needs provided the inspiration fo= r the work and I'm not aware of use outside that environment, but it's enti= rely possible to develop mappings for other provisioning needs. Having said that, I must note that the protocol has been typecast. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Feb 16 16:17:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E0E21E807D for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bLixiw3foq-O for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og116.obsmtp.com (exprod6og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB1621E8079 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob116.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTz2ckp8KzTC8/NB1a0A5hXAFc483z09C@postini.com; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:26 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q1H0HMf1030334; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:17:22 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.139]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:17:22 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.206]) by dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:17:21 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:17:20 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Alessandro Vesely , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AQHM7OKT+C/7PD9FuEmLTbK7Wk45eZZAOBlw Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:17:20 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D59EA46@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2012 00:17:21.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[844E8A10:01CCED09] Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:17:28 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:38 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all >=20 > On 16/Feb/12 11:50, Keith Gaughan wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:51:21PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> On 15/Feb/12 17:05, Gavin Brown wrote: > >>> > >>> EPP provides a data model for domain names, the only one I'm aware > of > >>> that has seen even moderate adoption. Reusing the response > >>> formats from RFC 5731-5733 seems sensible if we want to avoid > >>> reinventing the wheel. It should at least be a starting point. > >> > >> Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me > that > >> if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be > >> possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission > accomplished. > >> > >> What am I missing? > > > > That could work, though it does go against some of the stated aims of > WEIRDS > > (RESTful WHOIS, that is). As the provreg list is currently active > again, and I'm > > sure nobody there would mind terribly if further useful object > mappings were > > added. It's at least an avenue worth exploring. >=20 > PROVREG had a BoF in Dec 2000 and terminated in Jan 2004. That seems > to be just before CRISP started, but that's not enough to explain why > those protocols ignored one another. I participated in neither, so I > change the subject to catch the attention of someone who participated > in both, e.g. Scott. Actually, I didn't follow CRISP all that closely because Andy was doing mos= t of the driving for the Verisign Labs team. I don't remember talking to hi= m about this topic, but he must have convinced me that it wasn't a big deal= since I never raised any concerns. Is your memory any better than mine, An= dy? Scott From andy@hxr.us Thu Feb 16 17:24:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852A821E8095 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.242 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6MSv73W2oYl for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E826D21E807F for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so295808qaf.10 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.76.139 with SMTP id c11mr3512143qck.1.1329441862331; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tapvpn1u-156.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm21366359qaz.7.2012.02.16.17.24.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:21 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D59EA46@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:24:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91BB95C8-3625-4C95-A23F-37C02843208C@hxr.us> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D59EA46@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMsPr7fkLCUeS7hCLrLtUm+0utc/8FaravQzZcWrJtghLYCWXj6LuK26wygNvRmvjRfHaN Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" , Alessandro Vesely Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:24:23 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Actually, I didn't follow CRISP all that closely because Andy was = doing most of the driving for the Verisign Labs team. I don't remember = talking to him about this topic, but he must have convinced me that it = wasn't a big deal since I never raised any concerns. Is your memory any = better than mine, Andy? EPP was discussed briefly in CRISP, but the CRISP WG aimed for a = transport that could support SASL which EPP does not. And at the time, = BCP 56 was enforced so HTTP was not viable. These are different times. -andy= From carlosm3011@gmail.com Thu Feb 16 17:31:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388C021E8099 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:31:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.307 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q8Pt27LOI4u9 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:31:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D4C21E809A for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:31:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so1850535yen.31 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:31:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wuOuB7gYIp33qIgm+8DF+a4/KX4S860yGrktQr7ie4s=; b=r4pgNvkEbIlKglh6LZJIctuSLQgl1TNziUsRVHPwEXXkBAtP7e1j0kHMX28/xpL8tY n9ALzU2bkbsWAv3cFVV4fq+kAXIuHVlFHQRjggSEcTaNZpqNwXCn+a9nmEeSDmOrIVo5 DBDflsaRpACfF046jAIx3FHQFWmeJvu6xTSOw= Received: by 10.236.197.103 with SMTP id s67mr7235693yhn.5.1329442292184; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:31:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local (r186-53-74-230.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy. [186.53.74.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a39sm18618671yhk.15.2012.02.16.17.31.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:31:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3DADEF.6070903@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:31:27 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:31:39 -0000 A few answers in between lines On 2/16/12 6:29 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> you write: >> I agree that XML is the right tool. JSON support is also *very* >> desirable. > I prefer JSON, but whatever. HTTP + REST and a clean data model can make both of us happy. > >> However, IMO, plain access using a non-specialized client is >> a MUST in my opinion. > -99, for reasons that I'd think would be obvious to anyone who's ever > done standards development. SMTP isn't browsable. POP isn't > browsable. BGP isn't browsable. TELNET isn't browsable. SIP isn't > browsable. They're accesed via clients that understand the formats. > If you want to build debugging tools to look at the data, that's a > fine idea, but don't demand them as part of the spec. I haven't been involved in standards development for a long time, but I have been on the pain-suffering side of WHOIS users for longer than I can remember. The examples you provide have little to do with this problem space, Users, goals and expectations are completely different. And even so, SMTP, POP, HTTP and TELNET can be pretty much used with a generic tool like netcat. We cannot ignore the fact that in the WHOIS problem space there are as many automatic information processing needs as human consumption needs. And again, you can get as formal as you want with your XML schema, define your ontologies, your validation DTDs, Schemas and even so with some clever XSLT transforms (that obviously *do not need* to be specified in this WG) you can provide for all needs. I really don't get the negative attitude towards using signaling that *is already part of HTTP*. > >> The good thing is that this is easy to achieve as long as we stick to >> HTTP transport, either by using XSLT sheets or other mechanisms. > I don't speak Chinese. Do Chinese RIRs have to provide everything in > English? Conversely, do North American RIRs have to provide > everything in Chinese? Being able to browse something isn't worth much > if I can't understand the results. > > If the answer is, it doesn't matter if you can't understand them, you > can see what the data is, why doesn't that apply equally to JSON or > XML results, which are 100% text that any browser can display? I'm not sure I get your point here. You don't want multiple formats, I get it, fine. We can agree to disagree and let the group decide. > >> I don't think we can ask our communities to do XML programming in order >> to access the registry database. > I still prefer JSON, but XML libraries are cheap and plentiful. If we > choose XML, generating and parsing it is an insignificant part of the > programming effort. Then I'm not sure what we are arguing about. Would you disapprove if an implementer of whatever WEIRDS standardizes writes XSLT transforms to present it for human users and accepts a header for signaling desired output ? No one is asking the WG to work on these XSLTs, my original point was that the *signaling* should be agreed on. It seems to me that you are getting excessively concerned about using standard HTTP headers in a commonly-agreed way... As you say, I haven't done a lot of standards development, but perhaps I've felt the pain of the badly broken WHOIS system for a long time. Warm regards, Carlos From calvin@orange-tree.alt.za Thu Feb 16 23:03:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B2221F8716 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:03:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSMrjYqNwE+M for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.orange-tree.alt.za (mx.orange-tree.alt.za [160.124.184.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4527D21F8715 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.103] (196-215-65-70.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.215.65.70]) (Authenticated sender: calvin) by mx.orange-tree.alt.za (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82E89FE05D for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:03:38 +0200 (SAST) Message-ID: <4F3DFBC9.4010900@orange-tree.alt.za> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:03:37 +0200 From: Calvin Browne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030106070908000503070200" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:03:44 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030106070908000503070200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 15/02/2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote: |Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point. It seems to me that |if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow*anonymous EPP*, it would be |possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished. | |What am I missing? The overheads associated with setting up an EPP type session are way more than the overheads associated with an RFC 3912 type session. Based on query loads for 'whois' type info - you really want your spec to lean towards an RFC 3912 model and not an EPP model (and by that I don't mean leaving the EPP data model behind if *that* bit is thought useful). (my 2bitcoins worth) --Calvin --------------030106070908000503070200 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 15/02/2012,
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
|Perhaps, EPP is much more than a starting point.  It seems to me that
|if we modify RFC 5730 so as to allow *anonymous EPP*, it would be
|possible to use it instead of whois right away --mission accomplished.
|
|What am I missing?

The overheads associated with setting up an EPP type session are way more
than the overheads associated with an RFC 3912 type session.

Based on query loads for 'whois' type info - you really want your
spec to lean towards an RFC 3912 model and not an EPP model (and
by that I don't mean leaving the EPP data model behind if *that*
bit is thought useful).

(my 2bitcoins worth)

--Calvin
--------------030106070908000503070200-- From alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at Fri Feb 17 00:34:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC3621F8841 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:34:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.012 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PBKGc7NAFpx7 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD18121F8827 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-mail.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.2]) by mail.sbg.nic.at with XWall v3.47 ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:34:13 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:34:11 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Message-ID: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B67EEAE@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> In-Reply-To: <4F3DFBC9.4010900@orange-tree.alt.za> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AcztQk3h4Y7x7OWmTsq3l+ut8oOrrwACbvXw References: <4F3DFBC9.4010900@orange-tree.alt.za> From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" To: "Calvin Browne" , X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:34:16 -0000 Calvin Browne wrote: > |What am I missing? >=20 > The overheads associated with setting up an EPP type session are way more > than the overheads associated with an RFC 3912 type session. >=20 > Based on query loads for 'whois' type info - you really want your > spec to lean towards an RFC 3912 model and not an EPP model (and > by that I don't mean leaving the EPP data model behind if *that* > bit is thought useful). I would like to go even one step further. In practice, even clients who *do* have an EPP account with our registry tend to use WHOIS rather than EPP info, because EPP is much more heavyweight (and hence slower) for both client and server side (encryption, hard to debug, hard to get client software for eg. web frameworks, session setup/teardown), and also a limited resource (we do limit the number of parallel EPP sessions to the registry system on a per-client basis). But, for some applications (like check-as-you-type domain availability information), even WHOIS tends to be too heavyweight for both client and server side.=20 In order to address that, we do currently provide a "finger" (RFC1288) based interface, which is still not fast enough in certain situations. I was thinking about whether TCP itself is an overkill in such situations, and allowing CoAP as an even more lightweight transport protocol for a RESTful WHOIS would help in such use cases. Has anybody looked into this option yet? I remember that lots of effort in CRISP went into the discussion of the appropriate transport protocol, and i don't necessarily want to open that can of worms, but it might be worthwhile to think a little bit outside of the HTTP-constrained box ;-). Alex=09 From sm@resistor.net Fri Feb 17 00:54:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6933021F889E for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:54:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.641 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqS3MtFXbv5N for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D9821F885A for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1H8sh0Z000397; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:54:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329468889; i=@resistor.net; bh=9jfEshHvw/sReIDPjXfZfmFnxIOY2Gfhd/+uyPmhtGU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=s6dDve3S/t7dgCjRqJxWdRQ3pdEDhkR/rTefY5B37z6ry8rTAKoTnHC3gV/7N2a1Q aVfo2p73tkKitZ0lFMAzgn59mVbqbQYFqxCElMY+ihcQRZUi/gMVLinSWqHG/0F4cZ X/3azltIdMPnTU/DTXv1HLK2DUAwPOcwDPhW6lQM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329468889; i=@resistor.net; bh=9jfEshHvw/sReIDPjXfZfmFnxIOY2Gfhd/+uyPmhtGU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=y06cBKTrn7iKQIgXEryyEfFH8hJoOx65dImnsniXAj+sSJRftq4Bn3alfCSjfa1f2 pvPwudtH1GCfPRNDgdMJ3BCaoADUN/CXDBMUYSKfFSFhIoLmZKWsZS1CmDV3TRoxuo cbwWAxx4x77mJ2ObguTe4hxi7HtsLU2wnZORokUg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120217004212.090d33e0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:52:50 -0800 To: Alexander Mayrhofer From: SM In-Reply-To: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B67EEAE@nics-mail.sbg.nic .at> References: <4F3DFBC9.4010900@orange-tree.alt.za> <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B67EEAE@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:54:53 -0000 Hi Alex, At 00:34 17-02-2012, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: >In order to address that, we do currently provide a "finger" (RFC1288) >based interface, which is still not fast enough in certain situations. I >was thinking about whether TCP itself is an overkill in such situations, >and allowing CoAP as an even more lightweight transport protocol for a >RESTful WHOIS would help in such use cases. I wondered when someone would bring up CoAP. :-) Carsten Bormann posted a comment when it was mentioned in another working group ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep/current/msg00756.html ). Regards, -sm From vesely@tana.it Fri Feb 17 02:57:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A37921F8812 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:57:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yv+mOSvQxavE for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB5721F87C0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:57:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329476245; bh=hficnRjXfyrmH5gnf9KGQS/gYJ4YhDsIbgAEJyj5nBU=; l=1446; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jhSx9RrCpMi7UbyqfkoaBWR7gzZQ5Ju16lH1TlSfIf38S23cxXqvR19/I0g0zopc3 ah0FEyc1Vge3j9EyaZPPjjY72hE+PqKx9m1JKFSZCo6pDIM3sAMwQ9hKOMLAbx24iP ih6RjJy8BlMySdEb0Uz3NgBO7L4ECiYzUZHoQ1ro= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:57:25 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F3E3295.00002EE0 Message-ID: <4F3E3295.6010801@tana.it> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:57:25 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:57:28 -0000 On 16/Feb/12 20:48, Francisco Obispo wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > Well, the access model is actually not part of EPP.. the widely used > EPP Transport over TCP is a totally different RFC [1]. A registry could use (a pool of) local TCP connections to marshal their EPP server's data to a web server. > I personally don't feel like EPP would fit the requirements of a whois > protocol. Although there is functionality that is fairly similar, there > is a whole bunch of separate issues that include access control, policy, > and transactions that would not apply to whois systems. http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/whois-info-extension.pdf >> However, from a software POV, it is usually convenient to use the same >> API and shared chunks of code for both updating and browsing. >> So, it is natural to think that someone who is familiar with an EPP >> implementation could easily derive an utility for querying that data >> from it. I'd feel uncomfortable with pursuing WEIRDS for names >> without having checked out why that's not true. > > If someone is capable of understanding EPP, and its data structures, it > would not have any trouble understanding an XML document with a response. I think the problem is not to understand the response, but to provide homogeneous responses from all registries. AFAICS, that's the reason why number registries are considered "easy". From vesely@tana.it Fri Feb 17 03:07:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9E921F879C for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:07:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2RLY4VOeKAT for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E33121F877D for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:07:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329476836; bh=HTKEOBvX34eiqEKIbG6zBndC1ItlcJfkVeoAQf4ZDV8=; l=1647; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HRSyhaHDZiIvqhKRse8fc/UyDqoF9EW6Nxn6prqwUiIlQOC3IS0UaVpgJ9ZJvbemX 2P8mtq/u/nBFg3nNgOqDB1BQ0jnT+AMimPn7PDLMZ/YHCcH0eEfv8Gw3Q47YJ4zEWg HuI3XdGzkDQB5ujPXTdWBGpS6LeI7zRW6Mst6fFU= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:07:16 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F3E34E4.00003114 Message-ID: <4F3E34E4.6090104@tana.it> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:07:16 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:07:18 -0000 On 16/Feb/12 22:24, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:59:34PM +0000, Andy Newton wrote: > >> I'd prefer we place words in the charter that restrict this working >> group to RESTful web services. > > That was the goal of this text: > > The > overall effort will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry > Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but > with the explicit additional goal of producing a simple, > easy-to-implement protocol that is to be deployed via REST > > It's not a restriction, but I think it offers a pretty strong > suggestion. An EPP server could be plugged into Apache using a local, read-only, "anonymous" EPP client. Would you consider that a fulfillment of the suggestion above? > Besides, I don't know why we're talking about EPP when the very idea > that EPP is any sort of basic standard that everyone adheres to is > wrong on its face. Many name registries don't use it (partly because > of disagreements about the data model), some number resource > registries don't use it, and many name registries use an alternative > mapping from the "standard" one because they also don't like the data > model. For number registries, or name registries that don't use EPP because they don't need it, developing a new service may well be the best solution. For name registries where the data model is the problem, why do we think we'll get a better success than EPP? > I have no objection to looking at EPP for inspiration. But the idea > that the EPP mappings are going to be the basis of work strikes me as > wrong. For RIRs, I fully agree. From keith@blacknight.com Fri Feb 17 04:13:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698D421F859F for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:13:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.078 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.479, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i10UIb1q6Hnu for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D0821F8572 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 305AE58328; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:13:01 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:13:01 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:13:07 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:29:27PM -0000, John Levine wrote: > In article <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> you write: > > >I agree that XML is the right tool. JSON support is also *very* > >desirable. > > I prefer JSON, but whatever. > > > However, IMO, plain access using a non-specialized client is > >a MUST in my opinion. > > -99, for reasons that I'd think would be obvious to anyone who's ever > done standards development. SMTP isn't browsable. POP isn't > browsable. BGP isn't browsable. TELNET isn't browsable. SIP isn't > browsable. They're accesed via clients that understand the formats. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but in fairness, for their day, SMTP and POP were at least human readable and writable and it was possible for a human being to sit down with a general-purpose client (a TELNET client at the time) and interact with the server using the protocol without any special purpose tools. Some systems administrators occasionally do just that when diagnosing problems with mailservers. > If you want to build debugging tools to look at the data, that's a > fine idea, but don't demand them as part of the spec. IIRC, SMTP, POP3, FTP, HTTP, and a good number of protocols were designed with that ability originally by using TELNET as their basis. Now that I'm done with being Devil's Advocate, so long as requests can be constructed and responses read by somebody with access to a general-purpose client (be it a HTTP browser, TELNET, or even netcat) who is at least half-way competent and understands the application protocol itself, then all that matters is that the format used is human readable. Both XML and JSON fulfil that goal perfectly well as metaformats. Arguing over which one ought to be used is basically bikeshedding. In fact, I don't get why people are advocating multiple machine-readable response formats. At the end of the day, the machine doesn't give a whit what format they receive the information in. The *only* reason this debate is happening is because we're arguing over something that only becomes an issue once a human is looking at the response. Personally, while I might prefer JSON for its readability to due being less cluttered, XML at least has the advantages that (a) you can slap stylesheet on it and (b) it's extensible through namespaces. That puts me very weakly in the position of advocating the use of XML, but at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter a jot. To paraphrase a certain former US president, it's the data model, stupid. [Sidebar: So long as there's at least one mandatory response type, any client that allows the JSON and XML serialisation can provide Accept headers to the client for them, say application/json+weirds and application/xml+weirds. If the server supports one or the other or both, all well and fine.] > >I don't think we can ask our communities to do XML programming in order > >to access the registry database. > > I still prefer JSON, but XML libraries are cheap and plentiful. If we > choose XML, generating and parsing it is an insignificant part of the > programming effort. And not difficult either. If a developer is going to play fast and loose with the protocol, they're going to do that regardless of whether the data format the request and response information is presented in. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From keith@blacknight.com Fri Feb 17 04:19:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC8A21F8797 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:19:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.067 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.468, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZSKFHyCXUNXz for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:19:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F07B421F8792 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 3BE8158328; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:19:36 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:19:36 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120217121935.GB22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:19:37 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:24:03PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > and many name registries use an alternative > mapping from the "standard" one because they also don't like the data > model. Some significant examples of exactly that, such as EURid and dns.be, are moving towards a model closer to the EPP model over time, however. K. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From carlosm3011@gmail.com Fri Feb 17 05:34:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8656D21F84D7 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:34:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.191 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7R4FkYWQFpv for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C4721F84D3 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnq2 with SMTP id q2so2030959ggn.31 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:34:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5iit7AXJg7NQlwpXvYVRXMygKscrrpJIyb0cKwWMS/c=; b=c7N1y1qnUdoAmbeyWnBoWwJ3ZjpbIxlCtdcVvlHcDtTKRO9ZHWUnHjgn6rpf3kP31J 59O7umli7cIsntMyOulvveD+Rw5xp+FwJw3SwAZTJvBjlrE2M0vGxObl9XFqw/FcQYP0 MyAtVIZfPpYRnUwrNDMWWD1YAJMi2PJ5EerwA= Received: by 10.236.131.38 with SMTP id l26mr9459392yhi.70.1329485664355; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.85.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b6sm14834684anc.3.2012.02.17.05.34.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:34:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3E575C.7020203@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:34:20 -0200 From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> <20120217121935.GB22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20120217121935.GB22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:34:25 -0000 Just to clarify mi opinion, for when consensus evaluation comes: - As Keith stated in a more eloquent manner than I, the ability to use non-specialized clients is important - I agree we look into the EPP data model for inspiration and maybe re-use (see below for my comment on XML) - XML is a very good tool, it can be validated and formally specified, which are nice properties in the quest for interoperability and enabling machine processing - JSON is highly desirable as well, it *could* be spec'ed as a by product of the XML format through an XSLT transformation (in this case *yes* I advocate for standardizing this transform, so the formalization properties of the XML format are inherited by the JSON spec) - Signaling for other formats also important (again, HTTP already does it for us, we just need to agree on which header, if other than plain "Accept: "). And here, *no* I don't think the WG has to spec the representations themselves, just the *signaling*. I offer to document the way it's currently done among the RIRs implementations. regards Carlos On 2/17/12 10:19 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:24:03PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> and many name registries use an alternative >> mapping from the "standard" one because they also don't like the data >> model. > Some significant examples of exactly that, such as EURid and dns.be, are moving > towards a model closer to the EPP model over time, however. > > K. > From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Fri Feb 17 07:47:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCA221F884D for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vrNRgi0-Kdgp for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B92221F87A3 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1HD2E1S040115 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:02:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F3E76A2.9080201@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:47:46 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> <4F3E3295.6010801@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4F3E3295.6010801@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:54 -0000 On 2/17/12 5:57 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > A registry could use (a pool of) local TCP connections to marshal > their EPP server's data to a web server. Like Scott, I paid little attention to the CRISP WG, though probably for different reasons. I want to point out a layer 9 complication to using EPP "anonymously". There exists a set of authorized dbms accessors, aka "ICANN accredited registrars", which historically have viewed the service boundary between registries and registrars as both materially important, and defined by enforceable contract. IMHO, it is conceivable that one or more of these access providers will object to a contractual counter-party offering a thread to a non-contractual party, independent of the operation originating from the EPP client to the EPP server. Historically, access to the drop pool motivated the accumulation of registrar accreditations by parties pursuing the secondary market in expired names. Had there been a means of providing secondary market actors with substantive access (threads of execution, CIDR ranges) other than through execution of the then-current RAA, it is possible that the number of "ICANN accredited registrars" might number around 10^2 rather than 10^3. There are, as others have pointed out, other reasons not to just take EPP and run with it. As this one hadn't been mentioned, I mentioning it. Cheers, Eric From michael@mwyoung.ca Fri Feb 17 08:01:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C8E21F8817 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:01:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.223 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.376, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CLqIAqNAhESN for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD8321F86BB for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so5494127iag.31 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.43.52.74 with SMTP id vl10mr7299082icb.55.1329494511362; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id uy10sm11849782igc.1.2012.02.17.08.01.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:01:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: , References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> <4F3E3295.6010801@tana.it> <4F3E76A2.9080201@abenaki.wabanaki.net> In-Reply-To: <4F3E76A2.9080201@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:01:46 -0500 Message-ID: <005001cced8d$74387350$5ca959f0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGCNmI9EItQJDZUr3g+eCQnh2MOmwKzCyaWApM7BFIBgTu/5wFfIVoRAj5oV8IChp7ILQKoHrhtAnZmCr4Cn/ZMMgFNHRTEAiT0RdcA7vPOd5YOUtCg Content-Language: en-ca X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPzAPv+fMTX8kz6/IVXxYG0h/TUm1t6zFbBRGMmZiPIyjs4HN9z/SagSrK2US9wnb1IL7v Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:01:52 -0000 Whatever we decide on, authentication has to be considered, the days of blind IP source based rate-limiting - due IPv6 - are coming to an end. Well, they should anyways,......... I don't see any value in recreating the problem of having to answer every query because you don't know whats legitimate or not (DNS) if we are rebuilding Whois. IMHO, the overhead of building up and tearing down sessions is preferable to blindly having to answer Whois DDOS attacks by data-miners with large IPv6 allocations. -----Original Message----- From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: February-17-12 10:48 AM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all On 2/17/12 5:57 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > A registry could use (a pool of) local TCP connections to marshal > their EPP server's data to a web server. Like Scott, I paid little attention to the CRISP WG, though probably for different reasons. I want to point out a layer 9 complication to using EPP "anonymously". There exists a set of authorized dbms accessors, aka "ICANN accredited registrars", which historically have viewed the service boundary between registries and registrars as both materially important, and defined by enforceable contract. IMHO, it is conceivable that one or more of these access providers will object to a contractual counter-party offering a thread to a non-contractual party, independent of the operation originating from the EPP client to the EPP server. Historically, access to the drop pool motivated the accumulation of registrar accreditations by parties pursuing the secondary market in expired names. Had there been a means of providing secondary market actors with substantive access (threads of execution, CIDR ranges) other than through execution of the then-current RAA, it is possible that the number of "ICANN accredited registrars" might number around 10^2 rather than 10^3. There are, as others have pointed out, other reasons not to just take EPP and run with it. As this one hadn't been mentioned, I mentioning it. Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From andy@hxr.us Fri Feb 17 08:59:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C18E21F8778 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:59:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.312, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufUOVC-A-scO for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DC421F8769 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so1022872qaf.10 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.137.144 with SMTP id w16mr5396956qct.8.1329497948784; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from andytop.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o8sm26384933qan.11.2012.02.17.08.59.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:59:07 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <67D55631-617C-43A7-BF20-368D1B6A7245@isc.org> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:59:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> <67D55631-617C-43A7-BF20-368D1B6A7245@isc.org> To: Francisco Obispo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGGXJzlmmBm3WqnRsQhAkY6sLRqbN5hJcbZvsxVdI8mTYoSdt/1Jia5OoC1R4+dhjaXjXv Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:59:10 -0000 On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: > The most frequent problem I find with XML processing is when = programmers don't follow the rules to parse XML. I've even seen people = using sed/awk scripts to parse them=85 Probably because they're use to doing something simpler with JSON such = as using jsawk (https://github.com/micha/jsawk). By contrast the XML = equivalent is a rather abusive exercise in writing an XSL stylesheet and = running it through the xsltrpoc. Mindshare has shifted away from XML to JSON in the programming world. = When you look around at the RESTful services, JSON is the clear winner. "So what's the way forward? I think the Web community has spoken, and = it's clear that what it wants is HTML5, JavaScript and JSON. XML isn't = going away but I see it being less and less a Web technology; it won't = be something that you send over the wire on the public Web, but just one = of many technologies that are used on the server to manage and generate = what you do send over the wire." -James Clark of W3C fame http://blog.jclark.com/2010/11/xml-vs-web_24.html "It looks like the debate between XML and JSON may be coming to a close = with JSON poised to take the title of preferred format for web = applications." = http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2011/04/27/the-stealthy= -ascendancy-of-json.aspx As James Clark notes, Microsoft was the big player in the push for XML. = So it should say something that Microsoft were one of the biggest = proponents of the IETF's new JSON security objects efforts. And the = other newer IETF efforts are looking at JSON rather than XML when the = subject comes up. JSON also has something to offer this group beyond the arguments of the = shape of the brackets, and that is a fresh start. With XML we've already = seen on this list the propensity to pull in unnecessary cruft. Moving to = JSON will let people focus on the real work instead of bashing each = other about who's schema is better and which XML schema language is = best, do we use Xlink, what about Xpointer, just a little XPath here and = there, etc=85 -andy= From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Fri Feb 17 09:02:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E0621E8093 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:02:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6haHJgGAeMQ0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:02:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1375A21E803C for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1HEH0hg040623; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:17:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F3E8829.7080206@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:02:33 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Young References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> <4F3E3295.6010801@tana.it> <4F3E76A2.9080201@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <005001cced8d$74387350$5ca959f0$@mwyoung.ca> In-Reply-To: <005001cced8d$74387350$5ca959f0$@mwyoung.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:02:40 -0000 On 2/17/12 11:01 AM, Michael Young wrote: > Whatever we decide on, authentication has to be considered, the days of > blind IP source based rate-limiting - due IPv6 - are coming to an end. > Well, they should anyways,......... Agree. However, scaling-based observation(s) have not, thus far, motivated changes to two layer 9 registration data consumer use cases -- "law enforcement" and "intellectual property rights enforcement" -- to differentiate their basic access model from that of entities for which blind IP source base rate-limiting (and other management tools) have been developed to prevent large-scale data mining, equivalent to (registrar, or registry, or both) bulk access. > I don't see any value in recreating the problem of having to answer every > query because you don't know whats legitimate or not (DNS) if we are > rebuilding Whois. IMHO, the overhead of building up and tearing down > sessions is preferable to blindly having to answer Whois DDOS attacks by > data-miners with large IPv6 allocations. Agree. Sessions wins. Now we just have to convince the LEOs of the world that they really should cease acting like criminals. Eric From andy@hxr.us Fri Feb 17 09:09:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32C821F8702 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:09:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.321 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fvL-gw7fn9ov for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:09:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E9A21E801C for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so3816107qan.10 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.78.161 with SMTP id l33mr5375938qck.83.1329498583190; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from andytop.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm7sm26463048qab.5.2012.02.17.09.09.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:09:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:09:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> To: Keith Gaughan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnl94uzULa0CI+NvTgcmUpD7TQnsFAtcoDc0PAaqm01zvtn2u3+Cj7QKiR9YyR2yyS5ngPH Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:09:52 -0000 On Feb 17, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > Personally, while I might prefer JSON > for its readability to due being less cluttered, XML at least has the = advantages > that (a) you can slap stylesheet on it and (b) it's extensible through > namespaces. XSLT programmers have a low life expectancy. Been there, done that, have = the big red marks on my forehead to prove it. As for Namespaces in XML making XML extensible, that is false. The X in = XML means "extensible" which predates Namespaces in XML. And it shows. = Ever wonder why namespace qualification is different for XML attributes = than it is for XML elements? Because Namespaces in XML was an = afterthought. Not only that, but the use of XML Schema and even the better XML schema = languages such as Relax NG actually limit extensibility over what you = get with plain XML. -andy From francisco.arias@icann.org Fri Feb 17 09:20:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA12A21F85C2 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:20:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujByvnBUxg+Z for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB2B21F8593 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:20:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:20:10 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: "ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" , Michael Young Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:20:10 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AcztmGdUpFJVR/CIR6qzm6LHopxb7w== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3E8829.7080206@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:20:30 -0000 On 2/17/12 9:02 AM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" wrote: >>I don't see any value in recreating the problem of having to answer every >>query because you don't know whats legitimate or not (DNS) if we are >>rebuilding Whois. IMHO, the overhead of building up and tearing down >>sessions is preferable to blindly having to answer Whois DDOS attacks by >>data-miners with large IPv6 allocations. > >Agree. Sessions wins. Now we just have to convince the LEOs of the >world that they really should cease acting like criminals. I think we should build a protocol that enables this feature, but let the respective policy-makers decide whether to activate or not for each registry/registrar deployment as they see fit. __ Francisco. From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Fri Feb 17 09:47:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5C221E8098 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:47:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szAafOmyl9sh for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E2621E8094 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:47:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1HF1hQg041945; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:01:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F3E92A4.3040702@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:47:16 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Arias References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:47:45 -0000 On 2/17/12 12:20 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > I think we should build a protocol that enables this feature, but let the > respective policy-makers decide whether to activate or not for each > registry/registrar deployment as they see fit. could you restate this as a statement on a scaling property of the protocol? -e From johnl@iecc.com Fri Feb 17 09:49:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B706F21F8759 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbbwXpSLTT+o for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E167F21F867E for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 40599 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2012 17:48:59 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Feb 2012 17:48:59 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3e930b.xn--i8sz2z.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=dJbvksRbJQZfQit0S+UDCyemj6SQ2uqr7DpDehzx2MA=; b=GNpWJCtHXKfWSA8GtXGDgdaXBEqIpUEYeHQi7AopQc+449aS9fWucWaieETOWd2ML54oDG2wYKu1ftrxF25q1REuGHaMiqdvYY/ow9vaXRn3Ia+Q+cDL8FT7zxkcIuq6Hm/6B6pFSYF0zUdh9mdIdeDFPsar1ISEtFzTbpzekXk= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 17 Feb 2012 17:48:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20120217174837.68626.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:49:01 -0000 >In fact, I don't get why people are advocating multiple machine-readable >response formats. Assuming we agree that the goal is to design a standard way for clients and servers to interoperate, me neither. >[Sidebar: So long as there's at least one mandatory response type, any client >that allows the JSON and XML serialisation can provide Accept headers to the >client for them, say application/json+weirds and application/xml+weirds. If the >server supports one or the other or both, all well and fine.] Right. Debugging either is relatively simple. You can use a web browser or command line HTTP client to poke at a JSON or XML server, even though that server doesn't have a "web page mode", much as you can use a Telnet client to poke at an SMTP or POP or FTP server, even though they don't have a Telnet mode. R's, John From keith@blacknight.com Fri Feb 17 09:54:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD21421F85B6 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.056 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.457, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BkIvcByknjFZ for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB5321F8523 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 0665B58329; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:54:13 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:54:12 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:54:16 -0000 On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:09:41PM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > > > Personally, while I might prefer JSON for its readability to due being less > > cluttered, XML at least has the advantages that (a) you can slap stylesheet > > on it and (b) it's extensible through namespaces. > > XSLT programmers have a low life expectancy. Been there, done that, have the > big red marks on my forehead to prove it. > > As for Namespaces in XML making XML extensible, that is false. The X in XML > means "extensible" which predates Namespaces in XML. And it shows. Ever wonder > why namespace qualification is different for XML attributes than it is for XML > elements? Because Namespaces in XML was an afterthought. > > Not only that, but the use of XML Schema and even the better XML schema > languages such as Relax NG actually limit extensibility over what you get with > plain XML. You'll be glad to know that you're preaching to the choir, though I have to say I've only ever had problems with XSLT when my knowledge of XPath gets fuzzy, or when dealing with multiple schemata in the same document. And I'm well old enough to remember pre-namespaces XML and what a hacky bodge those were. I never said that XML's extensibility story was good, just that it had one, unlike JSON currently does at the moment. Whether said extensibility is needed or not in the scope of WEIRDS can be questioned, but I think it likely is. The less said about XML Schema the better, frankly, though I don't recall bringing schema definition languages up myself. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From andy@hxr.us Fri Feb 17 10:13:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B12621F86FC for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:13:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5wUVxmbLlIDi for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935D021F86F9 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so3883615qan.10 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.135.83 with SMTP id m19mr804737qct.43.1329502425130; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from andytop.arin.net (core.arin.net. [192.149.252.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ef6sm2993299qab.7.2012.02.17.10.13.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:13:44 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andy Newton In-Reply-To: <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:13:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2B01A757-5D4B-4197-A41F-3E32ADF1236F@hxr.us> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> To: Keith Gaughan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAd/+pykxDw6Or0exkz6WzoRjQbWvtgK90Pk/iZDASuh8TnfcEC9DdPsdQ8ORonDfFoIWn Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:13:47 -0000 On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > I never said that XML's extensibility story was good, just that it > had one, unlike JSON currently does at the moment. Whether said = extensibility is > needed or not in the scope of WEIRDS can be questioned, but I think it = likely > is. It has an extensibility similar to plain old well-formed XML. As nobody has pointed out a deficiency in Section 3 of rir-json, perhaps = nothing complicated is needed. > The less said about XML Schema the better, frankly, though I don't = recall > bringing schema definition languages up myself. Head down the XML route and that's the next topic. -andy= From keith@blacknight.com Fri Feb 17 10:49:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D18A21F86BA for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:49:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.447, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1pmRAJ9FPpCk for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6BB21F86A7 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 26B0558329; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:49:45 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:49:45 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120217184944.GE22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> <2B01A757-5D4B-4197-A41F-3E32ADF1236F@hxr.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2B01A757-5D4B-4197-A41F-3E32ADF1236F@hxr.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:49:47 -0000 On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:13:44PM -0500, Andy Newton wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Keith Gaughan wrote: > > > I never said that XML's extensibility story was good, just that it had one, > > unlike JSON currently does at the moment. Whether said extensibility is > > needed or not in the scope of WEIRDS can be questioned, but I think it > > likely is. > > It has an extensibility similar to plain old well-formed XML. > > As nobody has pointed out a deficiency in Section 3 of rir-json, perhaps > nothing complicated is needed. As I said, my preference for XML was weak at best. I don't care strongly enough to argue in favour of either all that vehemently. So long as one machine-readable format that all servers produce and all clients can parse exists, I'm happy. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From johnl@iecc.com Fri Feb 17 12:58:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0562021F8593 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:58:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7gMoh5ueoXti for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:58:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A182421F858F for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:58:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19270 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2012 20:58:25 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Feb 2012 20:58:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3ebf70.xn--btvx9d.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=BzNkMJr7n+5bN0oCxBSyBpPccoo4t22Z848j4oiK0U8=; b=QVY+TFBpSpdhQ/v8eLzNpmYum79pPoMqemrKiUzi2sDILVu+YSovi5c4WDdiRaAHpW0m3L28MDkGg7uKoOpEmf8+r7WIMqO1jiO1KJRQ0fkBAGWsQne4pDj7xE2gy8wnHZLw85lWoJztsQUilPE6S6X5rRAbAvQzDosTgQnYWr0= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 17 Feb 2012 20:58:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20120217205802.74934.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B67EEAE@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all, but not CoAP X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:58:29 -0000 >and allowing CoAP as an even more lightweight transport protocol for a >RESTful WHOIS would help in such use cases. This came up in another context. I think you'd have to show an awful lot of people who find TCP transactions too slow, before you could make a sensible argument to use something other than HTTP as the transport. Personally, I have a lot of complaints about WHOIS, but excessively slow transport isn't one of them. HTTP and WHOIS are basically the same at the lowest level, one round trip in a TCP session. We already have a variety of ways to speed up HTTP, such as web caches and session keepalive. If you have some private arrangement with a provider to do lightning fast access, you can do whatever you want, but standards are about the connections that everyone can use. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Feb 17 14:12:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FBD21F866B for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:12:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJ83NIFFadfY for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62DA21F866A for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:12:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:12:09 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andy Newton Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:12:07 -0800 Thread-Topic: data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) Thread-Index: AcztwTEboQmotmgpRLGzVkJzlx2mdw== Message-ID: <86F84851-1799-4867-BF54-4F10CDD8DC5C@icann.org> References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BE0E9.9080800@arin.net> <16C924B1-3BEE-4B0A-84B2-F2F5806FE2B2@icann.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120215130906.09a0f5f0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:12:25 -0000 We agree. You stated this more thoroughly and elegantly than I did. On Feb 16, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >=20 > On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: >=20 >> It's the web. We have lots of data formats and we haven't seen the last = of them. I'm not suggesting that every dat format is in play *and* mandator= y. I'm OK with choosing a single mandatory/default and I'm even happy to le= t others make a reasoned decision as to what format this is. >>=20 >> If the protocol identifies a mandatory/default data format and accommoda= tes optional formats in signaling then it would look quite a bit like what = ARIN has in production today, no? >=20 > Yes, ARIN's RESTful Whois service hands back multiple formats. >=20 > As I see it, there are two large issues here: computer to computer data m= arshaling, and browsability (for lack of a better name). They each have di= ffering needs. >=20 > For computer to computer data interchange, there needs to be a mandatory = format otherwise we make the job of the client implementers much harder. Th= ere are a few qualities we should look for in that single format: 1) it sho= uldn't be something we have to invent, 2) it should be easy to find a parse= r for it; the more client environments it targets, the better, 3) it should= be simple, and 4) our resulting use of it should not be awkward or invoke = any unnecessary features. >=20 > For browsability, we want to be able to use a RESTful URL in a browser an= d have data displayed that doesn't require a programmer to interpret. There= are many ways of doing, the most common being HTML. XML has other advantag= es, but they quickly become cumbersome with every new "feature" added to th= e dataset. >=20 > -andy From dave.piscitello@icann.org Fri Feb 17 14:14:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9174721F867C for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:14:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u0ncV0aOsx94 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:14:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C438621F867A for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:14:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:14:02 -0800 From: Dave Piscitello To: Andy Newton Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:14:01 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AcztwXScJR93qNubQEOyP7aj358DBw== Message-ID: <3A0DDEED-8009-4848-A5DE-F152321F7A80@icann.org> References: <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:14:03 -0000 Again, we agree. Your clip takes my statement a bit out of context. I was saying (perhaps ag= ain, not elegantly) that client development is one consideration, not the o= nly one. On Feb 16, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >=20 > On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote: >=20 >> It really isn't strictly a matter of how easy or difficult it is to writ= e a new client.=20 >=20 > The ease of writing a new client or of using an existing one such as a we= b browser or wget should be a large consideration. >=20 > The notion that re-using EPP is easy is from the point of view people who= already have EPP servers and does not consider implementers writing client= s for the Internet at large. >=20 > I'd prefer we place words in the charter that restrict this working group= to RESTful web services. Such words would put EPP out of scope as well as = the sure-to-come proposals for SOAP, ssh-channels, SNMP, etc=85 >=20 > -andy From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Feb 17 15:19:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C0B21F86F5 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id biYAU5ipCrbx for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA4C21F86F3 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:16 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:16 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:19:14 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AQGCNmI9EItQJDZUr3g+eCQnh2MOmwKzCyaWApM7BFIBgTu/5wFfIVoRAj5oV8IChp7ILQKoHrhtAnZmCr4Cn/ZMMgFNHRTEAiT0RdcA7vPOd5YOUtCggAB8BdA= Message-ID: References: <66855220-8B3D-4536-B9C1-6CECE0159C16@hxr.us> <7ACE8CE4-D14F-4922-9D4A-1B091BA60227@isc.org> <0B344EB9-449D-4983-9F3F-EB8E47D327BA@icann.org> <4F3BC03C.4030806@arin.net> <4F3BC495.5010302@centralnic.com> <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <20120216105003.GF24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3D5B30.3020400@tana.it> <221AC764-EBB9-4911-B0C2-2E0B13E30976@isc.org> <4F3E3295.6010801@tana.it> <4F3E76A2.9080201@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <005001cced8d$74387350$5ca959f0$@mwyoung.ca> In-Reply-To: <005001cced8d$74387350$5ca959f0$@mwyoung.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:19:16 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Michael Young > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:02 AM > To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all >=20 > Whatever we decide on, authentication has to be considered, the days of > blind IP source based rate-limiting - due IPv6 - are coming to an end. > Well, they should anyways,......... I think REST over HTTP solves this nicely, given the abundant HTTP infrastr= ucture out there that has support for authentication. -MSK From avri@acm.org Sat Feb 18 10:13:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6043521F8507 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:13:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AM7gjJeiak5l for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E237D21F84EC for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RyonC-0007EP-HA for weirds@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:13:54 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) From: Avri Doria In-Reply-To: <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:13:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <77B3700B-1BA9-4A39-B9B4-491DE96A8330@acm.org> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> To: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:13:55 -0000 On 17 Feb 2012, at 12:54, Keith Gaughan wrote: > And I'm well old enough to remember pre-namespaces XML and what a = hacky bodge > those were. I never said that XML's extensibility story was good, just = that it > had one, unlike JSON currently does at the moment. Whether said = extensibility is > needed or not in the scope of WEIRDS can be questioned, but I think it = likely > is. The less said about XML Schema the better, frankly, though I don't = recall > bringing schema definition languages up myself. I think that in general data models need to be extensible and that is a = default requirement. =20 Perhaps there are occasions when extensibility is not needed or is a = luxury that can't be afforded, but in those cases, I beleive a case for = non-extensibility must be made. avri= From peter@denic.de Sat Feb 18 14:46:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C317921E8011 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:46:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ts7+lghWhr0U for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:46:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344ED21E800F for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1Ryt2p-0000K8-T3; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:46:19 +0100 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1Ryt2p-0002Z8-LD; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:46:19 +0100 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:46:19 +0100 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120218224619.GG19096@x27.adm.denic.de> Mail-Followup-To: weirds@ietf.org References: <20120214124654.GB6609@mail.yitter.info> <73BC1CB2-CF99-4825-AC24-CBEB7B9D6365@virtualized.org> <20120214202034.GC22144@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120214202034.GC22144@mail.yitter.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Why are we sure one protocol is better (was: New proposed charter text . . .) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:46:22 -0000 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:20:34PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I can't see how _anybody_ would come up with something that is deeply > incompatible, and therefore I support starting with the work that is > well in hand because we can get it done quickly and be sure we can > continue with the other stuff afterwards. But I could be wrong, and the discussion over the last few days has delivered a counter example, maybe quicker than any of us had expected. This does not increase my confidence in any attempt to add "name registry" work to the initial milestone list. So, for the record, I still believe that of the choices presented, the version named "weirds-charter-20120213ajs.txt" is the by far best and most promising one. -Peter From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sun Feb 19 08:18:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5D621F8468 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:18:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJ+fpKu17-6o for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4701521F8466 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:18:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1JDWmp8061212 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:32:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F4120EA.9050203@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:18:50 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> <77B3700B-1BA9-4A39-B9B4-491DE96A8330@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <77B3700B-1BA9-4A39-B9B4-491DE96A8330@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:18:59 -0000 On 2/18/12 1:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I think that in general data models need to be extensible and that is a default requirement. Extensibility is both abstract and concrete. The concreteness is the (possibly implicit) model, which, in theory, could be useful in the application problem domain. The abstractness may make implementation an interesting problem in computer science. As others have pointed out, life before XML Schema was iffy, and life after XML Schema has disproportionate complexity. As others have pointed out in related venues e.g., PROVREG, and DOMAINREP, implementation of extension of a protocol syntactically expressed in XML can be difficult, in theory and in practice. As a choice of working idioms, semantics via a decade old subset of a text markup language, for which validation tools are recent, and limited to text markup use, or semantics via a subset of C, for which syntax validation tools (compilers, editor modes, etc) have existed for a generation, and common to a vast array of programming idioms and uses, is a reasonable software architecture and engineering choice. My view is that the gang of N (Scott, Jordyn, Ross, ... self) erred in 2002 in selecting XML syntax to specify the semantics of a replacement to the then prevalent provisioning protocol specified in key-value pairs. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-provreg-grrp-reqs-06, where we'd not yet taken the step of committing to a syntax for command payload. So my two beads are for JSON, or rather, ease of implementation of a known application domain, and therefore, ease of extension within the implied and express constraints, that is, for C programming as the idiom rather than text and its markup. Eric From shollenbeck@verisign.com Sun Feb 19 16:17:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BEA21F8597 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8GDP12k0vlr2 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C1621F8595 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT0GRMlgiM7OjL7U1CLyzD0Q3qntx0Ue/@postini.com; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:57 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q1K0Hpn5001641; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:54 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.139]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:51 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.206]) by dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:51 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:17:50 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) Thread-Index: AQHM7yIxztUlwsBOuUivL2KB8ZbxLZZE6vgQ Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D59F8C5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <4F3D61E1.2000304@gmail.com> <20120216202927.22302.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120217121301.GA22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <1FD638EC-CE65-40C5-AE89-C3C4AE200D11@hxr.us> <20120217175412.GD22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> <77B3700B-1BA9-4A39-B9B4-491DE96A8330@acm.org> <4F4120EA.9050203@abenaki.wabanaki.net> In-Reply-To: <4F4120EA.9050203@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2012 00:17:51.0022 (UTC) FILETIME=[1503FCE0:01CCEF65] Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:17:58 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:19 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] data formats (was one protocol to rule them all) [snip] > My view is that the gang of N (Scott, Jordyn, Ross, ... self) erred in > 2002 in selecting XML syntax to specify the semantics of a replacement > to the then prevalent provisioning protocol specified in key-value > pairs. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-provreg-grrp-reqs-06, > where we'd not yet taken the step of committing to a syntax for > command payload. Given the options available *at the time* I still think we made the right c= hoice. With additional options available today it makes sense to consider a= lternatives. Scott From bje@apnic.net Sun Feb 19 16:19:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E645321F84D7 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:19:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2iZ6Y8AY-jI for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FA221F84D1 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:44dd:f096:cf1c:7f3a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:44dd:f096:cf1c:7f3a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B96B6768; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:19:50 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: <4F3E575C.7020203@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:19:49 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <438946DA-CB9E-43A0-8488-6A4CBEFEF379@apnic.net> References: <4F3BD37D.2040007@arin.net> <4F3BD7E1.8070901@centralnic.com> <4F3BF099.1000109@tana.it> <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> <20120217121935.GB22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3E575C.7020203@gmail.com> To: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:19:55 -0000 On 17/02/2012, at 11:34 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > Just to clarify mi opinion, for when consensus evaluation comes: Good plan! > - As Keith stated in a more eloquent manner than I, the ability to use > non-specialized clients is important I'd further this that a wider interest in the protocol than just = registries means there's a lot more base level support out there. Using = REST/HTTP lets future client developers take advantage of all the other = REST/HTTP work out there, and gives them a fair chance of already = understanding the mechanisms. Using a protocol specific to registry = data introduces a learning curve for every new developer. > - I agree we look into the EPP data model for inspiration and maybe > re-use (see below for my comment on XML) The data mode prototyped by Francisco (Message-Id = ) shows that there's some = easy ground to be made with this approach. > - Signaling for other formats also important (again, HTTP already does > it for us, we just need to agree on which header, if other than plain > "Accept: "). And here, *no* I don't think the WG has to spec the > representations themselves, just the *signaling*. I offer to document > the way it's currently done among the RIRs implementations. I agree that signalling is very important, and is another thing HTTP = gives us "free". I think the representations should be specced by the = WG, and I think there should be one mandated representation format (per = registry context, preferably with significant overlap on entities and = contact information), and as the WG is willing to work on it, other = optional formats. This would match up just fine with your preference to = have both XML and a transform of the XML into JSON documented. And to merge replies: On 18/02/2012, at 9:19 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I think REST over HTTP solves this nicely, given the abundant HTTP = infrastructure out there that has support for authentication. I'd want to hear very strong arguments against REST/HTTP before we throw = away all that support. There's authentication, channel security, = language, data format, compression signalling, redirections if that's a = suitable way to do referrals, caching, and a lot of work put into = scalability of servers. Byron From francisco.arias@icann.org Mon Feb 20 09:44:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0045621F86D1 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c5nizXqzHhkk for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A4721F8552 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:23 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: "ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:22 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: Aczv90hdg4lq4b4gTfW0KDwHKAwNQA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F3E92A4.3040702@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:44:25 -0000 On 2/17/12 9:47 AM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" wrote: >On 2/17/12 12:20 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: >> I think we should build a protocol that enables this feature, but let >>the >> respective policy-makers decide whether to activate or not for each >> registry/registrar deployment as they see fit. > >could you restate this as a statement on a scaling property of the >protocol? I think RFC 3707, section 3.1.4. Level of Access already provides good language for this requirement. __ Francisco. From francisco.arias@icann.org Mon Feb 20 09:44:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868F121F8794 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9B3nynN-eoig for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEDF21F8715 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:32 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: Byron Ellacott Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:44:29 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: Aczv902njTVSfi9DR3qRH55ZGGUjAw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <438946DA-CB9E-43A0-8488-6A4CBEFEF379@apnic.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:44:54 -0000 On 2/19/12 4:19 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >>- Signaling for other formats also important (again, HTTP already does >>it for us, we just need to agree on which header, if other than plain >>"Accept: "). And here, *no* I don't think the WG has to spec the >>representations themselves, just the *signaling*. I offer to document >>the way it's currently done among the RIRs implementations. > >I agree that signalling is very important, and is another thing HTTP >gives us "free". I think the representations should be specced by the >WG, and I think there should be one mandated representation format (per >registry context, preferably with significant overlap on entities and >contact information), and as the WG is willing to work on it, other >optional formats. This would match up just fine with your preference to >have both XML and a transform of the XML into JSON documented. +1 >And to merge replies: > >On 18/02/2012, at 9:19 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >>I think REST over HTTP solves this nicely, given the abundant HTTP >>infrastructure out there that has support for authentication. > >I'd want to hear very strong arguments against REST/HTTP before we throw >away all that support. There's authentication, channel security, >language, data format, compression signalling, redirections if that's a >suitable way to do referrals, caching, and a lot of work put into >scalability of servers. +1=20 __ Francisco. From keith@blacknight.com Mon Feb 20 10:35:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF1621F8753 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:35:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.437, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-K7k-zXVz6Q for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:35:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE85221F8738 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:35:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 54FEA5815F; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:35:39 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:35:39 +0000 From: Keith Gaughan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120220183539.GL22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <9CEFDAE7-2B14-47AF-8E17-731903DC0314@lacnic.net> <4F3C0B51.5090909@tana.it> <4F3C0D05.6000901@gmail.com> <20120216110142.GG24778@nineve.blacknight.ie> <7A391B7D-AC63-41DA-AD68-E02550344878@icann.org> <20120216212403.GI29243@mail.yitter.info> <20120217121935.GB22503@nineve.blacknight.ie> <4F3E575C.7020203@gmail.com> <438946DA-CB9E-43A0-8488-6A4CBEFEF379@apnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <438946DA-CB9E-43A0-8488-6A4CBEFEF379@apnic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:35:49 -0000 On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:19:49AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: > On 17/02/2012, at 11:34 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > > > - Signaling for other formats also important (again, HTTP already does it > > for us, we just need to agree on which header, if other than plain "Accept: > > "). And here, *no* I don't think the WG has to spec the representations > > themselves, just the *signaling*. I offer to document the way it's currently > > done among the RIRs implementations. > > I agree that signalling is very important, and is another thing HTTP gives us > "free". I think the representations should be specced by the WG, and I think > there should be one mandated representation format (per registry context, > preferably with significant overlap on entities and contact information), and > as the WG is willing to work on it, other optional formats. This would match > up just fine with your preference to have both XML and a transform of the XML > into JSON documented. Agreed. In addition, I'd prefer if the WG did *not* mandate any particular URI schema. I'd prefer to see us building on the work of the W3C's URI WG on URI templates instead, even if that means we stick to a minimal, easily implemented subset of their work. My reasons for asking for this are: (a) Mandating a particular URI schema places implementation limits on server implementors. (b) By mandating fixed URI schemata, we introduce a degree of brittleness into the system: if a future revision needs to revise how resources are referenced, fixed schemata nix this ability. (c) Fixd URI schemata remove server's ability to decide how it divides up its own URI space by preventing them from putting certain resources on separate hosts. At the end of the day, the URIs themselves are an implementation detail. It's the resources and their representations that matter more than anything. -- Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Mon Feb 20 13:28:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D914F21F863E for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:28:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TUdhoLWXJD1S for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134EC21F8648 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:28:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1KIfWu1072560; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:41:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F42BAD7.1080300@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:27:51 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Arias References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:28:22 -0000 > I think RFC 3707, section 3.1.4. Level of Access already provides good > language for this requirement. There's a little more to 3.1.4 than just "MUST provide an anonymous access mechanism", and if there are advocates for that particular access use case contributing to this specification, they have the opportunity to make the necessity and utility claims for their preferred use case(s). To restate Michael Young's earlier point: The attack universe consists of an effectively infinite reservoir of assets. Anonymous access means the "mumble" protocol scales to very large numbers of communicating endpoints. Do you have a solution to this in mind? Eric From johnl@iecc.com Mon Feb 20 13:48:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4063921E8010 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:48:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.416 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.783, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KswHHgjH1QUO for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B5821E800C for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:48:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 51695 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2012 21:48:50 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2012 21:48:50 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f42bfc2.xn--yuvv84g.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=XxqwsE3cSDvILYrrIekPHK8h+NyOMf2sJXWHM7wohLs=; b=LmaFTDKJ7EWhjKugGYdNwhBz8772ByJ6KaxI3T+ys97IjA98RneA+KjhwgkTmGbGxsupqWeWP6wrBDiKTe4KUzSs1RMZwMQPIAxT/RwoxGV8LHIexWUfbf5yLJYU0E5kJ/85uZFIsEYDhrmZAeRSFJ9OVIGmEor4uDosi3AUMHI= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 20 Feb 2012 21:48:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20120220214827.61254.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120220183539.GL22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:48:52 -0000 > Agreed. In addition, I'd prefer if the WG did *not* mandate any > particular URI schema. I couldn't disagree more. The point of this spec is to allow clients and servers to interoperate, clients can mechanically ask questions to which servers can return answers that can be mechanically parsed and interpreted. If there's no URI schema, how does the client what URI to use to ask a particular question? -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From johnl@iecc.com Mon Feb 20 13:54:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3F121F847C for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:54:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.439 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.760, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWheBc3J9gQu for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1633121F84D1 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 52994 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2012 21:54:49 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2012 21:54:49 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f42c129.xn--9vv.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ZwAygi7l5S5RLZtp7pd/22DNFNSivtFR1rPkArcOyzI=; b=Y/BBxo6KrxgJ7NjSIhjvoQwXP2+A8jB0vhIv3QfvpreRhmaSws8BuTwidNPMk5Kt4ZiLT/M7lUYbFJU3xoTiw1dy52vGkhFYtpvMsndviOQfyLSZM/BsdAT1YnA+vY0b7wxjSO7bHEHEVcDxxhJHaprj0V1sb3UjCER1Fcma24g= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 20 Feb 2012 21:54:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20120220215427.62713.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20120220183539.GL22951@nineve.blacknight.ie> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:54:51 -0000 To be more specific: > (a) Mandating a particular URI schema places implementation limits on server > implementors. Yes, that's a feature. > (b) By mandating fixed URI schemata, we introduce a degree of brittleness into > the system: if a future revision needs to revise how resources are > referenced, fixed schemata nix this ability. if you really need to do that, it means you add version numbers. A competent standards effort will do enough test implementations (the "running code" part) that we'll believe that what we have actually works before publishing the spec. > (c) Fixd URI schemata remove server's ability to decide how it divides up its > own URI space by preventing them from putting certain resources on > separate hosts. I really don't think it'd be a good idea to add extra complication to a design for the benefit of servers that don't know how to do load balancing. ARIN has a fairly complete prototype, and if they want features like this, they haven't said anything about it. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From francisco.arias@icann.org Mon Feb 20 16:17:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9100F21F85DD for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:17:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1kjSA+AKNAp for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:17:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117F321F85F2 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:17:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:17:50 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: "ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:17:47 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AczwLj8A+0I/xtqHTzWmImKr1reWGQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F42BAD7.1080300@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:17:51 -0000 On 2/20/12 1:27 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" wrote: >> I think RFC 3707, section 3.1.4. Level of Access already provides good >> language for this requirement. > >There's a little more to 3.1.4 than just "MUST provide an anonymous >access mechanism", and if there are advocates for that particular >access use case contributing to this specification, they have the >opportunity to make the necessity and utility claims for their >preferred use case(s). > >To restate Michael Young's earlier point: The attack universe consists >of an effectively infinite reservoir of assets. Anonymous access means >the "mumble" protocol scales to very large numbers of communicating >endpoints. Do you have a solution to this in mind? > >Eric "The protocol MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granularly assigning multiple types of access to data according to the policies of the operator. The protocol MUST provide an authentication mechanism and MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granting types of access based on authentication." "Server operators will offer varying degrees of access depending on policy and need." __ Francisco. From andy@arin.net Tue Feb 21 07:02:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D0021F881C for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:02:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hSV3zCL7hxEM for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA5421F87B8 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 95C412135FF; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E75A213588; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.17) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:02:32 -0500 Received: from CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ([169.254.1.55]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:02:41 -0500 From: Andy Newton To: John Levine Thread-Topic: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all Thread-Index: AQHM63vOXM7UroBXsEqjdKkeDMHDJZY9ddiAgADcpwD//7G8AIAAWQCA//+984CAAFkOgIAAHXiAgAACmgCAAB1AgIAAAgeAgAD9/wCAACZBgIAAcAYAgAAXm4CAAPo3AIAAFOEAgAPZAoCAATIsgIAAN4yAgAEfSgA= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:02:40 +0000 Message-ID: <7E83C8EE-9BD7-433D-8C4C-EE48DC0E433F@arin.net> References: <20120220215427.62713.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120220215427.62713.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.153] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:02:44 -0000 On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:54 PM, John Levine wrote: > I really don't think it'd be a good idea to add extra complication to > a design for the benefit of servers that don't know how to do load > balancing. ARIN has a fairly complete prototype, and if they want > features like this, they haven't said anything about it. I'm not sure how URI templating solves load balancing issues. And certainly= load balancing HTTP is well-trodden territory, so I do not think that shou= ld be a great consideration anyway. Though I have not looked at the W3C URI templating work, I have looked at t= he URI template draft in the IETF. It seems like a lot of work on the clien= t just to follow a URI. Perhaps things would be different if URI templating= libraries were as common as HTTP and JSON libraries, but they are not and = therefore a WEIRDS client implementer would be doing a lot of work. -andy= From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Tue Feb 21 07:22:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0100721F8869 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:22:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8oVQ8OYwA+d for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F36C21F884C for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1LCZPg6078737; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:35:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <4F43B693.1070405@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:21:55 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Arias References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:22:27 -0000 there seems to be a disconnect. this exchange began with two comments to the effect that authentication was necessary, for scaling reasons. you replied that authentication should be optional, discretionary to the endpoint identifier space, or i misunderstood you completely. i asked how what i understood to be your relaxation of a authentication requirement could be expressed in terms of scaling. your reply referred to 3.1.4 of rfc3707. i pointed out that rfc3707's 3.1.4 mentioned anonymous access, among other access requirements, without a reference to scaling and asked if you'd a solution to very large numbers of anonymous access attempting endpoints. you reply cites language from 3.1.4 of rfc3707 which appears to me to require subsequent protocol specification authors to allow endpoint identifier space allocators to assign arbitrary policy to data. assuming i'm anywhere close to understanding your position, and ignoring the implicit mandatory-to-implement burden on protocol specification authors to accommodate arbitrary metadata implementing arbitrary access policies of all endpoint identifier space allocators, i fail to see a response to the problem of scaling. in the off chance that a concrete example may help, i wrote a server that listens to port 43/tcp and makes a likely response. during a short period of time it responded to several orders of magnitude more queries than the number of records in the database this server published. not having intended to write robust code i was pleased that my little loop ran at a significant portion of wirespeed, for queries within the implicit design range, as well as for queries exceeding the design range, without failing. i discarded the log files but i've the impression that the size of the asset used to mine, or fail, this particular loop and its data, was modest, less than a thousand source endpoints. as assemblages of endpoints as assets available to mine or fail services exist, one or more orders of magnitude greater than reflected in the data i accidentally gathered, and casually discarded for its lack of novelty, the absence of a non-trivial authentication requirement for endpoints creates an issue of scale. overlooking the possible claim that the CRISP working group's work product is controlling on all endpoint identifier space work attempted by all future IETF working groups, where in the CRISP text is there a means to ensure that "WEIRDS" (and subsequent) implementations, whatever "WEIRDS" (and subsequent) eventually specifies, are robust, accessible, and capable of inter-operation, under known conditions? well, this has gone on longer than i'd planned, and at this point i've only noticed one other contributor for whom anonymous access implies a scaling issue. -e From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 21 08:20:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B01221F8859 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:20:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-jtR5tWsBxZ for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:20:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF2D21F8867 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 79692 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=13748.4f43c45b.k1202; bh=ZPru8+xl4RYffas75RPpp0vGCaBJnFv2NdnFSqXnmkA=; b=dcAs9r06mAennpj/CkxYwRwaAAZsTL2zqMfjt+O42aBpC/QKqO8Eb+rgsGPJE0+9D3b56GVV3PzayGF5wm6tlHv+XRysH9la5b/RgtwTTgByxTZGBGHtjk4KJrr/+D1dOoB0T7nzQx76DlzZGDSc3Fa3LHZnUQ9cS80FhGXDJfY= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 21 Feb 2012 16:20:21 -0000 Date: 21 Feb 2012 08:20:42 -0800 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Andy Newton" In-Reply-To: <7E83C8EE-9BD7-433D-8C4C-EE48DC0E433F@arin.net> References: <20120220215427.62713.qmail@joyce.lan> <7E83C8EE-9BD7-433D-8C4C-EE48DC0E433F@arin.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "" Subject: Re: [weirds] one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:20:51 -0000 > Though I have not looked at the W3C URI templating work, I have looked at the URI template draft in the IETF. It seems like a lot of work on the client just to follow a URI. Perhaps things would be different if URI templating libraries were as common as HTTP and JSON libraries, but they are not and therefore a WEIRDS client implementer would be doing a lot of work. We looked at it in another group. If you have an existing set of services with random URLs, it's a fairly clever way to put a layer of order over chaos, vaguely reminiscent of NAPTR. In a situation like this, where we expect that servers will be built to the spec, it's extreme overkill. Also, keep in mind that even without templating, server features like Apache's mod_rewrite provide server operators with a great deal of flexibility to make their internal URL structure different from the externally visible one. I see no reason to foist this complexity off on the clients. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From vesely@tana.it Tue Feb 21 11:01:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1017621F8897 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:01:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RewFZARxWkTP for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD0121F87D8 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:01:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1329850882; bh=DWU4ORJB5YyUU53vIEsRvynAlWjnojiSvdWMWlwvNn4=; l=2299; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=crZjo7lxUy6zjDXKVgYcU9nUxydO1xNgcZtYhtkmpMdggpgUG1NHn240yMKACE1fN ffZzCvNxIuPP7CFfAoCkuZHimSo1DxJhKD/tYy9bPgDM49ddiS8cCTG3t6LYG0vOgH kRw1Nw/hBrvj9zvIacos4hbRByArWGQ7ppzoXZWI= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:01:22 +0100 id 00000000005DC03F.000000004F43EA02.0000392D Message-ID: <4F43EA01.4020805@tana.it> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:01:21 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <4F43B693.1070405@abenaki.wabanaki.net> In-Reply-To: <4F43B693.1070405@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Anonymous EPP, was one protocol to rule them all X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:01:31 -0000 On 21/Feb/12 16:21, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > as assemblages of endpoints as assets available to mine or fail > services exist, one or more orders of magnitude greater than reflected > in the data i accidentally gathered, and casually discarded for its > lack of novelty, the absence of a non-trivial authentication > requirement for endpoints creates an issue of scale. > > overlooking the possible claim that the CRISP working group's work > product is controlling on all endpoint identifier space work attempted > by all future IETF working groups, where in the CRISP text is there a > means to ensure that "WEIRDS" (and subsequent) implementations, > whatever "WEIRDS" (and subsequent) eventually specifies, are robust, > accessible, and capable of inter-operation, under known conditions? > > well, this has gone on longer than i'd planned, and at this point i've > only noticed one other contributor for whom anonymous access implies a > scaling issue. I have difficulties in understanding how this scaling issue can be worded, and how authentication would solve it. Please bear with my ignorance of this problem. I can understand that a service can be torn down by a huge number of requests, which may or may not be caused by a DoS attack. I also understand publishing data --making it accessible to all-- versus disclosing within a restricted community only. In the latter case, users with access privileges need to be trusted for not disclosing that data in turn. Data mining is more subtle. There is some data that has to be published while limiting the rate at which it is accessed. Servers that mash up that data, typically needed because of the difficulties in locating the right WHOIS server, regularly hit rate limits. Granting them unrestricted access would require to trust that they are going to apply some rate limiting in turn, and at this point the whole issue seems inextricably indirect to me. At any rate, this issue stays the same whether one uses WEIRDS, EPP, CRISP, or Authenticated WHOIS, and is not the most urgent issue. The question is if EPP (with suitable access limits, but certainly much more relaxed than those it usually deploys) would be as good as WEIRDS (with the same access limits) as a WHOIS replacement. From steve.sheng@icann.org Wed Feb 22 11:47:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FCF21E8039 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:47:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sPULxCWKXfap for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:47:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FADE21E800E for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:47:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:47:53 -0800 From: Steve Sheng To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:47:51 -0800 Thread-Topic: ICANN publishes roadmap to replace the WHOIS protocol Thread-Index: Aczxmt3Iv7aumoI3TYWnFz9QuWMsgw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] ICANN publishes roadmap to replace the WHOIS protocol X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:47:55 -0000 Dear IETF colleagues, For your information, ICANN recently publishes a draft roadmap to replace the WHOIS protocol. This roadmap is to implement Board resolution that directs staff, in consultation with community, to develop a roadmap for implementing SSAC's SAC 051 recommendations. The roadmap is available here: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en .pdf There is also a comment period, if you are interested to comment, please write emails to sac051-draft-roadmap@icann.org, Regards, Steve From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 22 11:52:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1674621E800E for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:52:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.738, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hROxn9S+KoVT for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B531221F86DE for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 97869 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2012 19:52:53 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2012 19:52:53 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f454795.xn--30v786c.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=FL0AjxQgNOl4dZAPxXpB4slId1qRSGwVvGLtMrn865s=; b=WjphUeVdEjJtycrV/N6aa8aj/eTHNvwCkv55hnhsyWxtir7cWix6UGpUZa8BeBGIv7MHz1CshkgByQUxveXO4c5QYw7RMg/rizHjXbc43j68TbkcsmNeveSiAoA//mE1y7EAI55vRWzQpJWJImgJMSHahXDOvkoXGdtKum6bv2A= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 22 Feb 2012 19:52:31 -0000 Message-ID: <20120222195231.77645.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [weirds] ICANN Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:52:57 -0000 SAC 051 is about coming up with a replacement for name WHOIS, which they now call Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocols, pronounced DNRDAP. They've published a draft roadmap to implement it here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm The comment period runs March 18, and a reply period through 8 April so it doesn't appear there's any imminent actions, but to the extent that people would want WEIRDS stuff to be reusable for names, this is where it'd be reused. R's, John From francisco.arias@icann.org Wed Feb 22 13:27:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9D921E802D for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:27:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TcYuvaBvhOEr for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DDD521E801F for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:27:13 -0800 From: Francisco Arias To: "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:27:10 -0800 Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 Thread-Index: AczxqL4H+Z+sEkGcSwajYPtEmb4S0w== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120222195231.77645.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:27:15 -0000 On 2/22/12 11:52 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >SAC 051 is about coming up with a replacement for name WHOIS, which >they now call Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocols, pronounced >DNRDAP. > >They've published a draft roadmap to implement it here: > >http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm > >The comment period runs March 18, and a reply period through 8 April >so it doesn't appear there's any imminent actions, but to the extent >that people would want WEIRDS stuff to be reusable for names, this is >where it'd be reused. About timeline, the document states in the "Next Steps" section: "=8A the report will be finalized for Board and community action by the Prague meeting in June 2012." __ Francisco. From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Feb 27 10:08:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2101E21F87E1 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:08:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B7mhgIeOzsYi for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2D721F87ED for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BA581ECB41C for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:08:35 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120227180834.GR48576@mail.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [weirds] BOF session in Paris X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:08:39 -0000 Dear colleagues, A BoF session has been scheduled for this work for Paris. 2012-03-27 at 15:20. Conflicts: ancp, lisp, iccrg, 6renum, avtext, vipr, jose. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From fobispo@isc.org Mon Feb 27 10:21:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B0121F8664 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:21:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MeTi3s3bxt6z for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:21:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF6E21F8663 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:21:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3393C942D; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:20:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:e8e9:3b7:ea01:c140] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:e8e9:3b7:ea01:c140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71F12216C36; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:20:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <20120227180834.GR48576@mail.yitter.info> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20120227180834.GR48576@mail.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] BOF session in Paris X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:21:11 -0000 Will there be any chance to participate remotely? Thx On Feb 27, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A BoF session has been scheduled for this work for Paris. 2012-03-27 > at 15:20. Conflicts: ancp, lisp, iccrg, 6renum, avtext, vipr, jose. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds Francisco Obispo email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE