Subject: [weirds] Minutes from IETF 84 WEIRDS meeting

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 23:45:27 -0700

Thank you to Andrew Sullivan for taking excellent minutes from our
inaugural meeting in Vancouver this past week.

Those minutes are here for review, and I've uploaded them to the
meeting materials page.  Please advise of any corrections.

-MSK

--

Minutes of the WEIRDS WG 2012-08-01 09:00 PDT
Regency F
Hyatt
Vancouver, BC

Relevant materials:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/agenda/agenda-84-weirds
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-weirds-0.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-weirds-1.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-weirds-2.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-weirds-3.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-weirds-4.pdf

The Chairs opened the meeting, and drew to the attention of
participants details about the IETF IPR policy ("Note Well"), and
arranged administrative details, then turned to be business of the
meeting.

The Chairs outlined their vision for document organization.  There was
discussion of the Chairs' prioritization.

The Chairs raised the question of what "MUST support" in this context.
 There was considerable discussion about the topic, but the Chairs
clarified that they were talking about the mindset for development
rather than particular language in the document.

    ACTION: Chris Wright volunteered to make another pass at capturing
principles for development, rewriting text on Supporting Objects.

The meeting turned to the topic of service differentiation.  Sean
(Shuo) Shen gave a presentation.  There was discussion about whether
some of the problems were in fact protocol issues, or just
implementation issues.  There was discussion about authentication and
methods for that.

    AD asked from Chairs what they thought they heard.  Response was
that room wants to do some sort of authentication for service
differentiation, but still seems to be required.  Also, heard "KISS"
and based on existing experience.

The WG then moved to versioning and extensions.  Andy Newton made a
presentation.  There was discussion about prefixes and registries.  No
clear decision was made.

    ACTION: take determination of IANA registry to mailing list

The WG moved to the topic of URI templates.  Murray Kucherawy moved to
the floor and made a presentation.  There were arguments to the effect
that they are not necessary & too complex.  The Chairs noted the
resistance.

The WG moved to the Object Inventory.  Ning Kong made a presentation.
The Chairs noted that the point of the work is input to a design team
that will pick common base objects to standardize.  There was some
discussion about the semantics of the output (and difference with
presentation).

    ACTION: Chairs to determine design team.  The design team will
start with existing work from the numbers community.

The Chairs moved on from organizational topics on the grounds that
actions were covered in the individual topics.  The meeting move to
the bootstrap question; John Levine gave a presentation.  There was
considerable disagreement about whether any of the options are
acceptable, and additional objection about whether the bootstrap issue
is in scope.  The Chairs were unable to draw a conclusion about
whether the topic is in scope.

The question of an interim meeting was raised.  There was not a strong
request, so the determination was, "No."

The Chairs directed further discussion to the mailing list, and closed
the meeting at 11:35 PDT.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:14:00 -0700

>whether the topic is in scope.

Was the additional objection about scope for names or for numbers?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:01:51 -0300

I guess that bootstraping is not in the charter now and not finding something useful and the WG preferred to work on the basic operational problems and try bootstrap later.

Regards,
as

On 6 Aug 2012, at 13:14, SM wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:01:37 -0700

Hi Arturo,
At 10:01 06-08-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>         I guess that bootstraping is not in the charter now and not 
> finding something useful and the WG preferred to work on the basic 
> operational problems and try bootstrap later.

If bootstraping is not in the charter now it means that the WG will 
have to recharter to work on that.  This may take at least two years 
assuming that the WG survives that long.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:00:14 +0200

On Sun 05/Aug/2012 08:45:27 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> [...]

The inventory that was presented is a very valuable piece of work by
itself.  As it thoroughly documents an existing practice, which will
doubtlessly stay in use at least until weirds will be up and running,
the inventory deserves a broader diffusion than being published as an
item of IETF 84's proceedings.  Can the WG publish it as an RFC?

I have to note that the number counterpart of it is missing, although
such data would seem to be easier to gather than it was for names.

Thanks

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:28:26 +0800

Hi all,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [weirds] Object Inventory, was Minutes from IETF 84 WEIRDS
meeting
> The inventory that was presented is a very valuable piece of work by
itself.  As
> it thoroughly documents an existing practice, which will doubtlessly stay
in use
> at least until weirds will be up and running, the inventory deserves a
broader
> diffusion than being published as an item of IETF 84's proceedings.  Can
the
> WG publish it as an RFC?
> 
> I have to note that the number counterpart of it is missing, although such
data
> would seem to be easier to gather than it was for names.
> 

The link of the detailed statistics excel file is
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B96TtoK8a--MTTRuVUt3UHZMdEk. 
We'd appreciate that anyone in the working group could point out the
mistakes and help refine the data. If you find anything wrong, please let me
know. :)

Thanks and regards.
Linlin Zhou

---

From: Antoin Verschuren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:34:29 +0200

On 09-08-12 03:28, Linlin Zhou wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B96TtoK8a--MTTRuVUt3UHZMdEk. We'd
> appreciate that anyone in the working group could point out the 
> mistakes and help refine the data. If you find anything wrong,
> please let me know. :)

The link only seems to work if you have some sort of cloud user
account, which, for the vendor you have chosen to use, I don't have.
So I cannot verify if the data is correct.
Is there another place I can find the data you've collected on the
open Internet ?

- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Technical Policy Advisor SIDN
Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands

P: +31 26 3525500  F: +31 26 3525505  M: +31 6 23368970
mailto:[email-masked]  xmpp:[email-masked]
http://www.sidn.nl/

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:29:21 +0800

The file was uploaded again to here
https://rapidshare.com/files/764753782/Whois_response_result_20120730.xls. 
I have tested that file can be downloaded without account. Just click the
green download button:)

Linlin Zhou
CNNIC

Of
> Antoin Verschuren
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] Object Inventory, was Minutes from IETF 84 WEIRDS
> meeting
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> > mistakes and help refine the data. If you find anything wrong, please
> > let me know. :)
> 
> The link only seems to work if you have some sort of cloud user account,
which,
> for the vendor you have chosen to use, I don't have.
> Is there another place I can find the data you've collected on the open
> Internet ?
> 
> 
> - --
> Antoin Verschuren
> 
> http://www.sidn.nl/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQI3YQAAoJEDqHrM883AgnE7oH/i4EshMbVJ4S9NpSWsxUL
> Zhs
> Uc+Oc1aQqZPRev0rccj0N9N3BEHQoQpXTi/A53RC+xXR4ypNQtpu96UC8vACtrw
> 5
> ADBlj5M5NANWFAuNM5Dlxm/Sks4yGy5VEjF5ssRdibjp0tQBfFsYyEwQKJXVLT7D
> CxC0mv/UIWaIAoiSt46cRp9PeQh38GkvfmYphCt6xxGCFoSh3aNsrbKiFZbk4RC8
> DPAHKv7kyYmQ3HvskKStu8ZtohgCB/bv8SsAUItxooKf28n9L3GfIH71U/RHUJbi
> S0WzQtgDsIwvM+pty0JWiTlm1NvkbZzc70saM5xP92SKPAdJqUyvzmFt9mF6Ep8
> =
> =bli7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:01:14 +0800

Dear Antoin,

Thank you for your information about .nl. I will update the data file ASAP.

As to the whois data format, I found that there are various display ways.

1. key: value VS. key: blob data

key:value example

Registrant ID:66454
Registrant Name:Patrick W Lay
Registrant Organization:Nic AG LLC
Registrant Street1:3321 Whitestone Cir 206
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Kissimmee
Registrant State/Province:FL
Registrant Postal Code:34741
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4072015298
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.7185044461
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[email-masked]

blob data example:

Registrant:
    STI044010-SIDN2
    Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland
    Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland, Meander 501, 6825MD
 ARNHEM, Netherlands
    +31.0263525555
    [email-masked]

So in the blob data example, I can't define the meaning of "registrant" and
how to classify it in the data file. This is one of issues that I
encountered.

2. single level VS. multi level

single level example:

	Admin ID:65672
	Admin Name:Dr. Patrick W. Lay
	Admin Organization:Nic AG LLC
	Admin Street1:3321 Whitestone Cir 206
	Admin Street2:
	Admin Street3:
	Admin City:Kissimmee
	Admin State/Province:FL
	Admin Postal Code:34741
	Admin Country:US
	Admin Phone:+1.4072015298
	Admin Phone Ext.:
	Admin FAX:+1.7185044461
	Admin FAX Ext.:
	Admin Email:[email-masked]

multi level example:

	Admin Contacts:
		Name: ICT Directorate | AFG NIC
		Organisation: Ministry of Communications and IT
		Address:
			Mohammad Jan Khan Watt
			Kabul, Kabul	AF
		Email Address: [email-masked]
		Phone Number: +93 20 2103883
		Fax Number: +93 20 2103700

The first level key "Admin Contacts" has no value. How to handle this
element is another problem.

I think the above elements format may affect a little about the number count
of analysis result, but all the elements are listed in the data file and the
data reflects a rough trend of elements distribution.
Thanks again for your help. And any other data correction information will
be appreciated.

> From: Antoin Verschuren [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:23 PM
> To: Linlin Zhou
> For .nl, you forgot the Name Server.
> And I have thoughts about any data element you call "Street" to be used in
an
> address. Addresses in some countries are unaware of street names, where
> houses have a name and streets do not. So I find this data element name to
be
> "US/western oriented". Same is true for postal code, which is not
standardized
> (and cannot be standardized by the IETF).
> The way we solve this is by having an entity including address as one
blob, but
> then again that is difficult to parse.
> 
> I take it you only queried our public whois on port 43, which is heavily
> restricted.
> Our webinterface whois where you need to agree to T&C shows more
> information.
> And finaly, our registrar whois interface on port 43 (whitelisted) shows
you all
> the data elements and names dat we use.
> For completion, here's the result of all 3, copyright notice deleted:
> 
> 
> 
Linlin Zhou 
CNNIC

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:53:31 +0800

The latest version of data file after updating .nl whois response.
https://rapidshare.com/files/2363548949/Whois_response_result_20120817.xls

Regards
Linlin Zhou

Of
> Linlin Zhou
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:29 PM
> To: 'Antoin Verschuren'; [email-masked]
green
> download button:)
> > Subject: Re: [weirds] Object Inventory, was Minutes from IETF 84
> > WEIRDS meeting
> >
> We'd
> > account,