Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:50:39 -0500

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:27:36 +0100

On 02/Feb/12 18:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> If

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: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:57:35 -0800

I´m just afraid of spending two years discussing whether a person has a 
surname and first name, or just a single ´name´ 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:
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:07:57 -0500

> 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
[email-masked]

---

From: Francisco Obispo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:59:46 -0800

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:13:38 -0500

Hi,

> 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, regis…

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Francisco Obispo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:15:59 -0800

I think it does, thank you very much.

Looking forward to participate in the charter.

Francisco

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Feb 2012 05:47:14 -0000

>If you think it doesn't capture what you want, suggested text would be

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: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:28:09 -0500

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:04:16 +0100

>     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

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: Jim Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:40:32 -0500

-- On February 2, 2012 12:50:39 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [weirds] New proposed 
charter --

> 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: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:05:50 -0500

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
[email-masked]

---

From: "Smith, Bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:06:01 +0000

+1

On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:40 AM, "Jim Galvin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> 
> -- On February 2, 2012 12:50:39 PM -0500 Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [weirds] New proposed charter --
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
> 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: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:11:44 -0500

>       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
[email-masked]

---

From: "Smith, Bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:14:25 +0000

So we are limited to what the AD says? 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.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:34:31 -0500

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:38:39 -0500

On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 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 YOUNG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:40:06 -0500

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,ŠŠ.

Michael Young

---

From: MICHAEL YOUNG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:41:53 -0500

+1!

Michael Young

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Feb 2012 16:44:05 -0000

>citizen" to number registries in this work, which is how I interpret 

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: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:59:13 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:35 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter
> 

I wouldn't say that name registries in general had a desperate need. Much of the need came top-down, which is part of the reason CRISP wasn't widely implemented.

Having said that, you're still making a valid point. The gTLD registries operate 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 go unmet because of layer 9 name registry issues.

Scott

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:03:03 -0500

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.
> 

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.
 
> 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
[email-masked]

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Feb 2012 18:24:04 -0000

>that ought to be added to make this clear?  If so, can you suggest

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: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:58:53 -0800

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

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:16:24 +0100

> 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

Well, we are having this discussion because it /is/ hanging around.
Acknowledging it brings good auspices.

> 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 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:52:48 -0800

FWIW I really don't care what the "W" stands for, the {E, I, R, D, S} capture the critical attributes. "Widely" is fine, 
I'd be perfectly happy if the "W" is "whatever" so long as name registries and RIRs are in scope for the work.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:26:01 -0500

+1

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Feb 2012 19:45:24 -0000

>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 Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:34:51 -0500

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Andrew Sullivan
Sent: February-03-12 12:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [weirds] New proposed charter

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 11:40:06AM -0500, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote:
> 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.
 
> 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.

> 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

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:24:58 -0800

On Feb 4, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 

Also +1.

W

> -----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=
> =zf/h
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

---

From: Dave Piscitello <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:19 -0800

I could go with this, too.