From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 1 05:41:32 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 56C821F0422 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 05:41:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1k4bRIa6SdDI for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 05:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C09E1F0C9E for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 05:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGmPcpAGiChUcNZr3zWZCuygtWV/jyD2@postini.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 05:41:31 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q91CfMOB009359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:41:22 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:41:22 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Andy Newton , SM , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00 Thread-Index: AQHNnZB1M9IE+MSaPkibRIuysMghTZegL1QAgAQ4o7A= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:41:21 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EE8E@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120928070525.0b79b210@elandnews.com> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 12:41:32 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andy Newton > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:10 PM > To: SM; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00 >=20 > Thanks SM. By my count your tab for Atlanta is now pre-populated with > three beers. >=20 >=20 > On 9/28/12 11:00 AM, "SM" wrote: >=20 > >The RFC 2119 boilerplate is missing. There is a long list of > normative > >references. Could the list be pruned to what is really needed? >=20 > We can take a look at the reference list. >=20 > As for 2119 language, there is only one "MUST" in the document (outside > of boilerplate). We can take that out or convert to 2119 language. Somehow we lost the "Conventions Used in this Document" section. I'll add i= t back. We might have only one MUST in the document now, but that will sure= ly change in the future. I'm pretty comfortable with all of the normative references as-is. Each is = cited appropriately. If you think otherwise please identify specific refere= nces that you think should be omitted. > >I don't see any mention of user identification, authentication and > >access control in the draft. If that is being addressed in another > >draft, I suggest having a pointer to the draft for now. >=20 > Yes, that would be the rdap-sec draft. As Andy noted, we're going to cover the specifics in rdap-sec. Once we know= what needs to be done we'll add appropriate reference text to rdap-query. I don't have anything to add to Andy's other responses. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 1 06:01:06 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 B17E311E8164 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:01:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M+5aWX2w9TYi for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og107.obsmtp.com (exprod6og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1975911E814E for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob107.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGmUCji5EOwxajhfShJPnfB3Yq91H2zJ@postini.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:01:05 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q91D0tdv024495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:00:55 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:00:55 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: SM , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 Thread-Index: AQHNnPqIZBKnFNd9QEq6X9I55eHwzJekapOQ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 13:01:06 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of SM > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:50 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 >=20 > Hello, >=20 > These comments are on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00. Please note that > this is not a review. >=20 > In the Introduction Section: >=20 > "One goal of RDAP is to provide security services that do not exist > in the WHOIS protocol" >=20 > One of the questions that may be asked is why is security not part of > the protocol. I can add text that explains how WHOIS use has changed over time, but I don= 't want to try to guess at the motives of the original author. > RFC 4949 is more of a glossary. If I recall correctly, it has been > used for some specification. I am not sure whether it is a correct > reference. It's cited as an informative reference because it defines the security serv= ices. Without the reference I would have to define each one. That seems sil= ly given that we already have 4949. > In Section 3.5: >=20 > "TBD: does it make sense to talk about proof of integrity and data > origin authentication for responses?" >=20 > I would say yes. I suggest forgetting the law enforcement angle and > look at this in terms of data integrity. As a quick comment, I think > that it may be easier to avoid non-repudiation. It may be easier to > focus on "securing" the protocol instead of looking at this from a data > point of view. I think you're right about the need. One thought I had was to approach each= service from a use case or requirement perspective. Is there a use case th= at requires confidentiality? Authentication? Availability? Integrity? Non-r= epudiation? If that answer to any of these questions is "no" then it's prob= ably safe to say that the service isn't needed. Scott From sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 1 08:46:30 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 51A1D1F0C7E for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xGQUT8c1D+Jr for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8D51F0CCD for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:29 -0700 (PDT) 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 q91FkMpR012322; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:46:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1349106388; bh=AnuIEN/IUD67UBilXDGVHVe8/CUYI3UrKSiCT+JuX80=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jCRrij93dFLrqTTLq4KriA3V3NDQtJhAYHiWRjj+O/fhSamJiDejFeJtqAxrWsxph Erkf2Jrh5VeJ0I7AR6jpcSbKR+aNR2NN74onhZoPTKph9s2O0LoRrTh7oCwPoRpcJl fffVPw2C40vNMyH2oUQsacDKg8ygtUOQM17WFFCI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1349106388; i=@resistor.net; bh=AnuIEN/IUD67UBilXDGVHVe8/CUYI3UrKSiCT+JuX80=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gNMFZA+EzokxFoX3n6m8yE1tNl0RFKOUWpALLq3YEXTWgxsoUX9CD9AVlmu1oU+ef /QUB2t2ld9WnyRTgPZ+hw28IvkBhpTXGYCCzrxIbgxd2Uq9LcM4QVBmkC/+ZFHBehb K/Pww7E6wGrfn3WImxWQKUGA2V4Rv6w3gEumkoRs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:04:35 -0700 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" From: SM In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vco rp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 15:46:30 -0000 Hi Scott, At 06:00 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >I can add text that explains how WHOIS use has changed over time, >but I don't want to try to guess at the motives of the original author. Sorry for not being clear. I meant why is security not part of RDAP. Regards, -sm From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 1 09:43:54 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 A27F311E80D5 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XylcV9lJ42nB for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F1221F869D for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGnIPy9nPqW6jAM+WtXY0+DPb9cD5ryP@postini.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:43:50 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q91Ghd8m018162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:43:39 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:43:39 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: SM Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 Thread-Index: AQHNnPqIZBKnFNd9QEq6X9I55eHwzJekne3hgAAO5nA= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 16:43:38 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 16:43:54 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 11:05 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 >=20 > Hi Scott, > At 06:00 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >I can add text that explains how WHOIS use has changed over time, but > I > >don't want to try to guess at the motives of the original author. >=20 > Sorry for not being clear. I meant why is security not part of RDAP. Now I'm confused. Security *is* part of RDAP. What have you seen (or not se= en) to suggest otherwise? Scott From sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 1 10:07:10 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 365BA1F0D36 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vql5wggdy4kk for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DA81F0D17 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) 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 q91H71oG013185; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:07:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1349111228; bh=vITzNhzz4O6XR54+UXNeVkm/yBYtP2W4zOYaQv6CsRE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pzdstTT6nglG0M+ZvO4IVEVYHH20Yjt5q/U8znV9KK4cod/3XkrLNTv7xTfcNOsua I+LBPa0bHYjSQcXUeUlqEkTgwcDB0/QzmPIoCYk2ghUZLYEQlMpyyNNZUDyjWI12Uz 1aRXVhThZz+PTM/+R5xWfGvVU4J6kBptWrlDmW+k= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1349111228; i=@resistor.net; bh=vITzNhzz4O6XR54+UXNeVkm/yBYtP2W4zOYaQv6CsRE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AQPuXCzzS5BJKPKa9xR7SL2BHGgnUqYVgFpqojpgX3gdYfQQFZIoU3KB+/p/UhQND FZWQvpdcO1wPHHdjdWKBmwYMdMnFIFbiO7BMyg+q3bjGGv3pLWT6cc4TNiNvCU4rBM 0FfureXr9AAZKKL95zgrUT9BZMG4LEG16QDYtP+o= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:04:59 -0700 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" From: SM In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vco rp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 17:07:10 -0000 Hi Scott, At 09:43 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >Now I'm confused. Security *is* part of RDAP. What have you seen (or >not seen) to suggest otherwise? I read draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00. I commented on the security aspect in the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01656.html Regards, -sm From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 1 10:16:11 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 082A511E8112 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:16:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5rZbE7Xlk+wR for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og112.obsmtp.com (exprod6og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA8A1F0D31 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob112.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGnP05lyCmYVXX9DUi+OfHPQGdio/rBt@postini.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:16:10 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q91HFxF0019284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:15:59 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:15:59 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: SM Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 Thread-Index: AQHNnPqIZBKnFNd9QEq6X9I55eHwzJektD/+gAACFWA= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:15:58 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 17:16:11 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:05 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 >=20 > Hi Scott, > At 09:43 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >Now I'm confused. Security *is* part of RDAP. What have you seen (or > >not seen) to suggest otherwise? >=20 > I read draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00. I commented on the security > aspect in the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/weirds/current/msg01656.html ...and Andy and I both replied to that. Are you suggesting that something n= eeds to be added to rdap-sec or rdap-query? If so, what? Scott From sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 1 10:46:01 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 BA50E1F0D17 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qBpjXAAMnUJW for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA911F0CCD for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 q91HjsmZ009772; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1349113560; bh=ueOf+3XOHndgRI2if07RBMx+rmx0o+cpTeC9Yf8qIIw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3xGlBzjY+B64qMHmR49xKUNouGRNJaERbHla9+Af398MHouM1R+H30eCDPm1rbQV7 BrpKHOfFkIfdn4a0ef4w+FHQJTDe3KUCU79jJF7a4CsrL0D5UgZU6ua9fLC23OGGyL yFCoGmaUkGnRzJ4/ucx+Ckw3aylSfPFVpMwb3/GA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1349113560; i=@resistor.net; bh=ueOf+3XOHndgRI2if07RBMx+rmx0o+cpTeC9Yf8qIIw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MNZexf73ZnmaOJJDBAy2D9xK3WtkHk5snuf5urh0LbhxrXW2rllnr8bnyudwYycX6 PqkHnGWdZRiPZbsf85yNHbMsyLaD4hKCiRSRZcpNsZtZG5yo8ZYA0jy3OM88kCFSVe gJTJ2Hxf96gZdjCYqKl50jRiXIK69v4nTjEMygVg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001103620.098e56f8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:45:25 -0700 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" From: SM In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vco rp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 17:46:01 -0000 Hi Scott, At 10:15 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >...and Andy and I both replied to that. Are you suggesting that >something needs to be added to rdap-sec or rdap-query? If so, what? I don't have a strong opinion about any of this in the context of this WG. If the WG is designing a new protocol, the question which may be asked is whether security is part of the protocol. As rdap-sec is optional, it can be argued that it is not part of the protocol. Regards, -sm From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 1 10:51:03 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 D21A91F0D28 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:51:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JAXXM-wC8F2 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826FB1F0CCD for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGnX/qNSnftgxrrXFuaIH6qEyCqs21Aw@postini.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:51:01 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q91Horov002796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:50:53 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:50:53 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: SM Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 Thread-Index: AQHNnPqIZBKnFNd9QEq6X9I55eHwzJektD/+gAACFWCAAAjJqoAAAOYg Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:50:52 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F193@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001103620.098e56f8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001103620.098e56f8@resistor.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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 17:51:03 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:45 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 >=20 > I don't have a strong opinion about any of this in the context of this > WG. If the WG is designing a new protocol, the question which may be > asked is whether security is part of the protocol. As rdap-sec is > optional, it can be argued that it is not part of the protocol. Optional? How so? Eventually it should be added to both the query and respo= nse documents as a normative reference. Scott From sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 1 11:26:36 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 475091F0D50 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFcuWGh+HD4S for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBC81F0D17 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT) 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 q91IQScX012994; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1349115993; bh=LIkdgrm/xd8sWJxddyje6DLVIhSPCiTc+z3mMr4DLEc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hflClKmUXUuRcTsXh+6q44cjvkxq1D5ZHuXBuOEMLDJed9A6//MAxe+1XPnlQe2/p f1cb0UAuFTUr7jcW+X2jyGVZXgZxCMvrM/TRGO/J7+iffHqT3JY90Edws8WXa8xIbZ pxxtHmzROjej6RBvog2NpUx+qv+6Y1wIqiLwPpeU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1349115993; i=@resistor.net; bh=LIkdgrm/xd8sWJxddyje6DLVIhSPCiTc+z3mMr4DLEc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JqKdxqBXTLSKW5BTdV4wB7jaf0TOduBTGUMyQP4T+rI6nhD4zyviVBAjH/cHGJoPX Hr94UWBkeaE4QOL6mzRYHlClvqAyr70B0vBAPeBk/VnTRtokSrEi0TdBrV10Jr4/Gb ORp50alYo4UFp8o0KQAB5av4vRpDjPxnI96ohdJk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001111731.0b9d68e8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:26:18 -0700 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" From: SM In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F193@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vco rp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001103620.098e56f8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F193@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 18:26:36 -0000 Hi Scott, At 10:50 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >Optional? How so? Eventually it should be added to both the query >and response documents as a normative reference. A normative reference to a security proposal does not make security non-optional. The question is addressed through requirements. I don't see any such requirements in the drafts at the moment. It's not a problem as the drafts are -00. Regards, -sm From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 1 11:52:13 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 4932B21F893D for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:52:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVjmw9sbKHmh for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914D821F8938 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGnmVR42FPu970Tfa9wvJWuv55OjKqEs@postini.com; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:52:12 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q91Iq4C5022485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:52:04 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:51:23 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: SM Thread-Topic: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 Thread-Index: AQHNnPqIZBKnFNd9QEq6X9I55eHwzJekynNsgAAEeEA= Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 18:52:03 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F2FD@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001103620.098e56f8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F193@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001111731.0b9d68e8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001111731.0b9d68e8@resistor.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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 01 Oct 2012 18:52:13 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:26 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 >=20 > Hi Scott, > At 10:50 01-10-2012, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >Optional? How so? Eventually it should be added to both the query and > >response documents as a normative reference. >=20 > A normative reference to a security proposal does not make security > non-optional. The question is addressed through requirements. I don't > see any such requirements in the drafts at the moment. It's not a > problem as the drafts are -00. Per section 1.1 of RFC 3967, a normative reference "specifies a document th= at must be read to fully understand or implement the subject matter in the = new RFC, or whose contents are effectively part of the new RFC, as its omis= sion would leave the new RFC incompletely specified". That doesn't sound li= ke "optional". I agree that we need text in the query and response drafts to describe need= ed security services. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 8 05:39:46 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 0EF3421F8705 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SGb0oshOTFlM for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3444921F8694 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHLJkMGeBggG4TfSoJ2YV8/aTraVlsWP@postini.com; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 05:39:45 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q98Cde0l015432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:39:43 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:39:40 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements Thread-Index: Ac2lUftLaad6GvnRReGy6BLdSiTz2w== Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:39:38 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692D6D@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 08 Oct 2012 12:39:46 -0000 In the interest of trying to get some discussion going I'd like to start so= me threads focused on security requirements. I intend to capture requiremen= ts in the RDAP security draft so that the requirements can be used to asses= s protocol needs. I'm going to start a few threads to discuss requirements = that I've found in multiple sources over the past few years. We can add to = or delete items from the lists as we see fit. Here's a sample of the sources I found: - RFC 3707, "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements" - SSAC 23, 27, 33, 40 - Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Report (Sheng, Piscitello, = and Gasster July 2010) If you read these documents and others focused on WHOIS security you'll fin= d much discussion of topics like "privacy" and "data accuracy". My contenti= on is that our focus should be on protocol security that supports operation= al security, but (for example) how registries validate data supplied by cli= ents is out of scope. We should specify protocol security that supports ope= rational security. I'm going to describe security services using terms defined in RFC 4949. Pl= ease review that document if you haven't read it recently. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 8 05:49:33 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 77DCA21F874C for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AwO-iIwcubF0 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og114.obsmtp.com (exprod6og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0C421F871E for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHLL27yE2IbXfsT+8W207APHgTthRvIx@postini.com; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 05:49:32 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q98CnSEi015718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:49:28 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPiKY1Eji2SBey8YiRsgP2Lg== Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:49:27 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692D97@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 08 Oct 2012 12:49:33 -0000 >From "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Report": Define an authentication framework for WHOIS that is able to accommodate an= onymous access as well as verification of identities using a range of authe= ntication methods and credential services. >From RFC 3707: Entities accessing the service (users) MUST be provided a mechanism for pas= sing credentials to a server for the purpose of authentication. The protocol MUST provide a mechanism capable of employing many authenticat= ion types and capable of extension for future authentication types. These are basically saying the same thing. Are there any other requirements= for authentication? Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 8 05:57:31 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 D6CF421F8596 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:57:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EOszL0R+Himr for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9981421F858E for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHLNuPpLiAc7HFv9rLS6DPqILo16Bdw7@postini.com; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 05:57:28 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q98CvOa7015965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:57:27 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:56:35 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements: Authorization Thread-Index: Ac2lVHWocCawI7fXRhy6hNOikyLfzQ== Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:57:23 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692DC3@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authorization X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 08 Oct 2012 12:57:32 -0000 >From "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Report": Implement an authorization framework that is capable of providing granular = (per registration data object) permissions (access controls). >From RFC 3707: The protocol MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granularly assigning multip= le 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. The protocol MUST provide an anonymous access mechanism that may be turned = on or off based on the policy of an operator. Thoughts on these requirements? 3707 doesn't say much about authorization.= It describes the requirements listed above in the context of access contro= l. Scott From johnl@iecc.com Mon Oct 8 17:17:14 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 6B0A321F87DD for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:17:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ZWmSrUUJ2L3 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:17:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 62DFF21F87DB for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 13551 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2012 00:17:09 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2012 00:17:09 -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=50736d05.xn--3zv.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=idoxRdEF3ecORDcTzEVnBxZygD5Urwltc54Jc0hXmyA=; b=gAAQayrD+VJyXOgLaJaKVx4pQxCKMyMhEilmqwHtHCdgu70k57v42Y3KyAbgEkHS7tbDnjBGrQc+fAz+QpRaWyUK6eRkyfWsmq4pvWVmQcaDz8YLunof5WQYxB4Xc0Wm6wJ/CFaFKQFXBKOvJA5lGWDt/d51c0rIL7rVW1qhSGA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=50736d05.xn--3zv.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=idoxRdEF3ecORDcTzEVnBxZygD5Urwltc54Jc0hXmyA=; b=cfw17Fs9r+yP1S9VLJMhHQ/yNFubgQe6kjlPfJiyjH0AY4Mkzpn0M9ZA2NvRHLs76Bg0XqgG2hyDCDTZcZWcC1hf1dNsxlXh+Ck8YDuf5wZyrSn0oYm6y+noy27GT5OACvghbnwehTBiYJbqkmWqrNRde3FLM5bL5Q3y8qDsGLQ= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 9 Oct 2012 00:16:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20121009001647.4266.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: weirds@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692D97@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 09 Oct 2012 00:17:14 -0000 >Entities accessing the service (users) MUST be provided a mechanism >for passing credentials to a server for the purpose of >authentication. >The protocol MUST provide a mechanism capable of employing many >authentication types and capable of extension for future >authentication types. >These are basically saying the same thing. Are there any other requirements for authentication? Not exactly the same thing, the first says there must be at least one way to authenticate, and the second is saying that there must be provision for multiple types. Both seem reasonable. It would be nice if there were a provision for federated authentication, so you don't have to reauthenticate at each stage of a referral. I realize there are situations where this won't be possible, but I also expect there will be a fair number where it will. The model I have in mind is zone file access for ICANN's new domains, where the plan is that you will sign up once with ICANN, who will distribute the credentials to all of the registries so for the most part the same credential will work everywhere. R's, John From chris@ausregistry.com.au Mon Oct 8 20:32:12 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 726C71F0423 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:32:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kWrcMnRxr-pX for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx02.ausregistry.net.au (mx02.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.15.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3051F0420 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au (HELO off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.1.3]) by iron02.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2012 14:32:05 +1100 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:31:34 +1100 From: Chris Wright To: John Levine , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:31:58 +1100 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lzpSa/SlDwbNmRQqp2Yze3xpl7g== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20121009001647.4266.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 09 Oct 2012 03:32:12 -0000 Easiest way to do that is have ICANN sign your public key providing you with a certificate that each server could simply validating using ICANNs public key, no need to have any sharing of credentials or anything else. Of course that means one of the supported authentication methods needs to be certificate based authentication - which exists for HTTPs already. This is only if indeed we need federated credentials at all, which is another question. Thanks c. On 9/10/12 11:16 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >>Entities accessing the service (users) MUST be provided a mechanism >>for passing credentials to a server for the purpose of >>authentication. > >>The protocol MUST provide a mechanism capable of employing many >>authentication types and capable of extension for future >>authentication types. > >>These are basically saying the same thing. Are there any other >>requirements for authentication? > >Not exactly the same thing, the first says there must be at least >one way to authenticate, and the second is saying that there must >be provision for multiple types. Both seem reasonable. > >It would be nice if there were a provision for federated >authentication, so you don't have to reauthenticate at each stage of a >referral. I realize there are situations where this won't be >possible, but I also expect there will be a fair number where it will. > >The model I have in mind is zone file access for ICANN's new domains, >where the plan is that you will sign up once with ICANN, who will >distribute the credentials to all of the registries so for the most >part the same credential will work everywhere. > >R's, >John > >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Mon Oct 8 21:02:47 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 41B9311E80BF for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:02:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLePLXMbtZGy for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:02:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 4AEAC11E809B for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 50010 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2012 04:02:42 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2012 04:02:42 -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=5073a1e2.xn--hew.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=5M4pn3XnZFOspvO0wUVOpz1XnX7T/aO2rBRL8mR3EwI=; b=iEiVenh0Tcqf78e62ycs8SLDuum5nexMBYSBehQqDJZbeFi8S+emQsLA27zXSbDLAzEJcovb43dbNiuFf6kmnB/o6MBZFLQ/w95HDh9pxAEBClt7w4jluCAObMQl7aORCDR8twlaW3H0P8nW2xJ7fplMy7LUahpEDoiNvDgmUdE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=5073a1e2.xn--hew.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=5M4pn3XnZFOspvO0wUVOpz1XnX7T/aO2rBRL8mR3EwI=; b=BYIgdWLW1Lm9pMM6lzdGmbHELorbg8vVUWA5ga07ZYphxYNwuHoqs1S3vxs6eedTRTDKX8BBwnXQ5YzLxLf5vZ25XjjZUHSLq7wKrxdQZHmvJmUqXXl7+Kkn/Sg1p6WIyx36FC3oqGO/1iDxHCAj7qWNipJVNknw86HzIQsSMx4= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 9 Oct 2012 04:02:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20121009040220.65963.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] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 09 Oct 2012 04:02:47 -0000 In article you write: >Easiest way to do that is have ICANN sign your public key providing you >with a certificate that each server could simply validating using ICANNs >public key, no need to have any sharing of credentials or anything else. That is certainly one approach to federated authentication, which could work OK if people agreed that ICANN was the central authentication authority, users all worked in ways where it was practical to install a signed certificate into their browser or other client, and they agreed on what if anything to do about certificate revocation. OAuth and OpenID are some other possibilities with other advantages and disadvantages. But I believe that Scott is asking whether we think he has the right items on his security checklist, not asking us to implement them quite yet. R's, John From shollenbeck@verisign.com Tue Oct 9 04:01:13 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 F3ECB21F88A4 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:01:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Of-a0sbe+qPB for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B69E21F88A2 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHQD9c2xioxO0v+lZmp/K3RP2zjTgA9j@postini.com; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:01:12 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q99B15g7031831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:01:06 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:01:05 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: John Levine , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: AQHNpbNyzzy9Yjfsl0OZQ+2Yq6hudZewzbjg Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:01:05 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D693346@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692D97@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121009001647.4266.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121009001647.4266.qmail@joyce.lan> 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 09 Oct 2012 11:01:13 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBKb2huIExldmluZSBbbWFpbHRv OmpvaG5sQHRhdWdoLmNvbV0NCj4gU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDA4LCAyMDEyIDg6MTcg UE0NCj4gVG86IHdlaXJkc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBDYzogSG9sbGVuYmVjaywgU2NvdHQNCj4gU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IFt3ZWlyZHNdIFNlY3VyaXR5IFJlcXVpcmVtZW50czogQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24N Cj4gDQo+ID5FbnRpdGllcyBhY2Nlc3NpbmcgdGhlIHNlcnZpY2UgKHVzZXJzKSBNVVNUIGJlIHBy b3ZpZGVkIGEgbWVjaGFuaXNtDQo+IGZvcg0KPiA+cGFzc2luZyBjcmVkZW50aWFscyB0byBhIHNl cnZlciBmb3IgdGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24uDQo+IA0KPiA+VGhlIHByb3Rv Y29sIE1VU1QgcHJvdmlkZSBhIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBjYXBhYmxlIG9mIGVtcGxveWluZyBtYW55DQo+ ID5hdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiB0eXBlcyBhbmQgY2FwYWJsZSBvZiBleHRlbnNpb24gZm9yIGZ1dHVy ZQ0KPiBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbg0KPiA+dHlwZXMuDQo+IA0KPiA+VGhlc2UgYXJlIGJhc2ljYWxs eSBzYXlpbmcgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGhpbmcuIEFyZSB0aGVyZSBhbnkgb3RoZXINCj4gcmVxdWlyZW1l bnRzIGZvciBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbj8NCj4gDQo+IE5vdCBleGFjdGx5IHRoZSBzYW1lIHRoaW5n LCB0aGUgZmlyc3Qgc2F5cyB0aGVyZSBtdXN0IGJlIGF0IGxlYXN0IG9uZQ0KPiB3YXkgdG8gYXV0 aGVudGljYXRlLCBhbmQgdGhlIHNlY29uZCBpcyBzYXlpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBtdXN0IGJlDQo+ IHByb3Zpc2lvbiBmb3IgbXVsdGlwbGUgdHlwZXMuICBCb3RoIHNlZW0gcmVhc29uYWJsZS4NCg0K SSBtZWFudCB0aGF0IHRoZSBvbmUgc2VudGVuY2UgZnJvbSB0aGUgIkludmVudG9yeSBvZiBXSE9J UyBTZXJ2aWNlIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBGaW5hbCBSZXBvcnQiICh3aGljaCBzYXlzICJ4IiBhcyB3 ZWxsIGFzICJ5IikgYW5kIHRoZSB0d28gZnJvbSBSRkMgMzcwNyBhcmUgYmFzaWNhbGx5IHRoZSBz YW1lLg0KDQpTY290dA0K From superuser@gmail.com Tue Oct 9 12:44:35 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 8C9D311E80A4 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:44:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jR7gLblB2NQM for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5064511E808D for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so4434755lbo.31 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:44:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Iy0DJGso4k7t5BTBzbKUigHCWd8P6eZCAinJ3u+UhLo=; b=VuY41m5knd87Cu0PDJQ73Ii0eJ96cUljwHJ5xj3ARe08ghbF6eRz8khD0UXncVDY+z qvCMVeVjIffmd8QSENiDXhvCrA3PrXMzXawX8EKU2BFqn1CprN4CFqWPscms8DibFukx jB3j0IKk1TbHG2FkTU7c+QJ09b4xIbY6bIhnyHBHmCTTt7rv2ZYXbe0P3VBKDj9cTH/F Jk3py4uv68k3ZBjBYWzd4pJfTMa1eNWAIqaKkW7MyCADO+Z1o74/Ozf7xmDrtYNlSM+d lHLygMpIQyZ32VpmFDQCKgcHPJdcFZbEDtscdCL030B3JvS6EFVkoaeh2aRCyAnsfwAj kqgw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.148.195 with SMTP id tu3mr17664685lab.16.1349811873114; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.111.170 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:44:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] Document submission deadline and meeting tiime reminders X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 09 Oct 2012 19:44:35 -0000 Hi all, a quick reminder that because of the upcoming November meeting, draft submissions will be closed until the start of the meeting, as follows: - -00 versions cannot be submitted after October 15, 00:00 UTC - non-00 versions cannot be submitted after October 22, 00:00 UTC If you have initial or updated versions to submit prior to the meeting, please submit them by those times. Also, we have a two-hour meeting slot scheduled for Monday at 17:40 local time in room "Salon B". -MSK, WEIRDS co-chair From superuser@gmail.com Tue Oct 9 12:49:24 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 5557921F87E2 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmDXwp9nvwo2 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9343721F87E1 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so3675635lam.31 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zwduj8IeUzJwgg/TcMWIYhCSDE+fLTKXdJa3+WL4Br0=; b=lCKllTgiseNefnAcvub4wO43CcxBQjq0eanzA7uSxOq38NbuL9ecFbPs9aSd66B2Hs v2XAQNxGaoRg47dkjzVP6UeOP0b1t9NIq/pMbd4gzOBids0EedtTUDmi8y4aK9CfXW68 u3TJo4kBXVMsGRjOOBRrgDaX/rvez9r0A8KXelp1uvyANqGjGrZQEc2sCca6slqu2fa6 eIvAHOR7QdOZPyzBJj+R6GbK8tPGi408pbLFoIDrhey6igAaVTiQDiGWgVbu90z8/TSa X/oPyqPIR+GZCSRzlupPDW4frQB/GKZ2slVg142169NhwRIyHB591rlYOudBrJDZzOwp svdA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.47.97 with SMTP id c1mr17301690lan.37.1349812162584; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.111.170 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:49:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] Solicitation for agenda items X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 09 Oct 2012 19:49:24 -0000 Please submit any requests or suggestions for our agenda slot in Atlanta. The usual things will of course appear on the agenda, including administrivia and an overview of the documents we have imported, who's working on them, where they stand and what the various editors need. We can also tackle open issues if needed. Editors/authors of the current documents, please give an indication of how much time you'd like on the agenda to talk about your document, or (perhaps more importantly) let us know if you're not attending so we can make other arrangements. If there are any specific requests for agenda topics, please reply to this thread so we can plan accordingly. -MSK, WEIRDS co-chair From nkong@cnnic.cn Tue Oct 9 19:39:40 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 30CC011E80E8 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wixsDrzMcbRz for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EB2A11E80A3 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:39:34 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'John Levine'" , References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692D97@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121009001647.4266.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121009001647.4266.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:39:27 +0800 Message-ID: <001501cda690$77f1f720$67d5e560$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLejSvz68xslx803CehKZsth3b+6JWP877w Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 10 Oct 2012 02:39:40 -0000 > It would be nice if there were a provision for federated authentication, so you > don't have to reauthenticate at each stage of a referral. I realize there are > situations where this won't be possible, but I also expect there will be a fair > number where it will. I'm also interested in such federated authentication. I think there may be potential user demand on it to simplify the process of authentications from one client to multiple servers. I still wonder whether we should consider such requirement at present. Cheers, Ning From shollenbeck@verisign.com Wed Oct 10 03:51:59 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 3F3FE21F86EA for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:51:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TRcugqZ+BxA6 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48D221F86E8 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHVTTOgp6WmeKZraCblRl6baGQDAeppI@postini.com; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:51:58 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9AAproD022545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:51:53 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:51:52 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Solicitation for agenda items Thread-Index: AQHNplcyiZ47JOJhxkScrRGu30XcgZeyXZLQ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:51 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D693BCE@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Solicitation for agenda items X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:59 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:49 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] Solicitation for agenda items >=20 > Please submit any requests or suggestions for our agenda slot in > Atlanta. >=20 > The usual things will of course appear on the agenda, including > administrivia and an overview of the documents we have imported, who's > working on them, where they stand and what the various editors need. > We can also tackle open issues if needed. Editors/authors of the > current documents, please give an indication of how much time you'd > like on the agenda to talk about your document, or (perhaps more > importantly) let us know if you're not attending so we can make other > arrangements. >=20 > If there are any specific requests for agenda topics, please reply to > this thread so we can plan accordingly. Murray, I'd like 10-15 minutes to talk about security requirements. Scott From andy@arin.net Wed Oct 10 05:54:29 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 6A54C21F86C8 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:54:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TyahYxKouT-V for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E429D21F86C5 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 11C6E213648; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909E22135EF; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.20) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:54:13 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:54:27 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Ning Kong , 'John Levine' , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPiKY1Eji2SBey8YiRsgP2LgAgYvyAADdGJYAADRhQAA== Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:54:26 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001501cda690$77f1f720$67d5e560$@cnnic.cn> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 10 Oct 2012 12:54:29 -0000 On 10/9/12 10:39 PM, "Ning Kong" wrote: >I'm also interested in such federated authentication. I think there may be >potential user demand on it to simplify the process of authentications >from >one client to multiple servers. I still wonder whether we should consider >such requirement at present. Perhaps rdap-sec could describe various federated approaches much the same way it is outlining the authentication mechanisms. Having a description of such things would probably be very useful to policy makers. Also, I think rdap-sec should make clear the distinction between authentication and authorization. Again, something very useful for policy makers. -andy From andy@arin.net Wed Oct 10 06:20:22 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 F2D5921F8731 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:20:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8cLAxJ6vyo-z for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372A821F86D0 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 8B22A1652B0; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8661652B1 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.20) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:19:55 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:20:08 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: switching to RFC 5988 link type registry Thread-Index: AQHNpun32IXlGuxENkmOkrQD17GcaQ== Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:20:06 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5AE37D9412ABA34F9B94D7C711674887@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [weirds] switching to RFC 5988 link type registry X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 10 Oct 2012 13:20:23 -0000 All, We currently define a structure for linking to registry related things using URIs. It looks like this: "uris" : [ { "type" : "source", "uri" : "http://whois-rws.net/contact/xxxx" }, { "type" : "held", "uri" : "http://example.net/location/xxxx" } ] And we define the types in Appendix A.3 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-00#appendix-A.3 ). Does anybody see a downside to switching to a more Atom like approach and re-using link types from the RFC 5988 IANA registry? In other words, instead of doing our own thing move to a pre-established method. Given the entries in the 5988 registry and what we have, here's the re-arrangement I see: 'self' - use 'self' from 5988 registry. 'parent' - use 'up' from 5988 registry. 'source' - use 'alternate' from 5988 with an appropriate media type in the 'type' parameter. 'web' - use 'alternate' from 5988 with text/html or text/xhtml or whatever media type 'rdap' - we may have to register something here, but that may also be an indication that this type is not needed. 'held' and 'geo' - let the GEOPRIV wonks register these as they are outside our bailiwick. Comments and suggestions? -andy From shollenbeck@verisign.com Wed Oct 10 09:06:12 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 6613C21F8573 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFLCitVTYLcy for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og102.obsmtp.com (exprod6og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A6921F8568 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob102.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHWc8uORz+2Jvv+Plk0xj0zuHluRPP3y@postini.com; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:06:11 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9AG6Afx001352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:06:10 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:05:18 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Andy Newton , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: switching to RFC 5988 link type registry Thread-Index: AQHNpun32IXlGuxENkmOkrQD17GcaZeys+zg Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:06:08 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D694097@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] switching to RFC 5988 link type registry X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 10 Oct 2012 16:06:12 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andy Newton > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:20 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] switching to RFC 5988 link type registry >=20 > All, >=20 > We currently define a structure for linking to registry related things > using URIs. It looks like this: >=20 > "uris" : > [ > { > "type" : "source", > "uri" : "http://whois-rws.net/contact/xxxx" > }, > { > "type" : "held", > "uri" : "http://example.net/location/xxxx" > } > ] >=20 >=20 > And we define the types in Appendix A.3 > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-weirds-json-response- > 00#appendix-A.3 > ). >=20 > Does anybody see a downside to switching to a more Atom like approach > and re-using link types from the RFC 5988 IANA registry? In other > words, instead of doing our own thing move to a pre-established method. I like the idea of reusing an existing approach. Scott From chris@ausregistry.com.au Wed Oct 10 23:00:13 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 D0D4221F86F5 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:00:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwHZ+FLtXYGf for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx02.ausregistry.net.au (mx02.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.15.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7684221F853A for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au (HELO off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.1.3]) by iron02.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2012 17:00:08 +1100 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:59:37 +1100 From: Chris Wright To: Andy Newton , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:00:00 +1100 Thread-Topic: [weirds] switching to RFC 5988 link type registry Thread-Index: Ac2ndZfZaMGXpiDMRg6S1zqlz9NuRw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] switching to RFC 5988 link type registry X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 06:00:14 -0000 Adding my support to this - I thinks its a great idea Thanks Chris On 11/10/12 12:20 AM, "Andy Newton" wrote: >All, > >We currently define a structure for linking to registry related things >using URIs. It looks like this: > >"uris" : > [ > { > "type" : "source", > "uri" : "http://whois-rws.net/contact/xxxx" > }, > { > "type" : "held", > "uri" : "http://example.net/location/xxxx" > } > ] > > >And we define the types in Appendix A.3 >(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-00#appendix-A. >3 >). > >Does anybody see a downside to switching to a more Atom like approach and >re-using link types from the RFC 5988 IANA registry? In other words, >instead of doing our own thing move to a pre-established method. > >Given the entries in the 5988 registry and what we have, here's the >re-arrangement I see: > >'self' - use 'self' from 5988 registry. >'parent' - use 'up' from 5988 registry. >'source' - use 'alternate' from 5988 with an appropriate media type in the >'type' parameter. >'web' - use 'alternate' from 5988 with text/html or text/xhtml or whatever >media type >'rdap' - we may have to register something here, but that may also be an >indication that this type is not needed. >'held' and 'geo' - let the GEOPRIV wonks register these as they are >outside our bailiwick. > >Comments and suggestions? > >-andy > >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Oct 11 01:52:59 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 4B51D21F876A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:52:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNT4Fb6IhwlY for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9753A21F8755 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:52:46 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Andy Newton'" , "'John Levine'" , References: <001501cda690$77f1f720$67d5e560$@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:52:37 +0800 Message-ID: <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJdHm5/rDs1DaXfirda7cKJOaZonJaU07oA Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 08:52:59 -0000 > Perhaps rdap-sec could describe various federated approaches much the > same way it is outlining the authentication mechanisms. Having a description > of such things would probably be very useful to policy makers. If the requirement can be accepted by the WG, I'd like to do this work in the next version of rdap-sec. > Also, I think rdap-sec should make clear the distinction between > authentication and authorization. Again, something very useful for policy > makers. +1 I also think authentication and authorization are technically two things. Authorization issues, which I think are necessary to be considered, are not discussed in the current rdap-sec draft. I wonder which document (rdap-sec or using-http) is more suitable to cover this topic. Cheers, Ning From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Oct 11 03:57:01 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 B2B2921F862A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:57:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibtHEVJ3Cp6v for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og101.obsmtp.com (exprod6og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3218521F8625 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob101.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHal+qKgbV39BCOId2W5xv2MdYVFumnE@postini.com; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:57:01 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9BAutl0027210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:56:55 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:56:03 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Ning Kong , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPzzy9Yjfsl0OZQ+2Yq6hudQAgYvyAADdGJYAADRhQAAAyOqmAAAQS0vA= Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:56:54 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D694539@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <001501cda690$77f1f720$67d5e560$@cnnic.cn> <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 10:57:01 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ning Kong > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:53 AM > To: 'Andy Newton'; 'John Levine'; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication >=20 >=20 > Authorization issues, which I think are necessary to be considered, are > not discussed in the current rdap-sec draft. I wonder which document > (rdap-sec or using-http) is more suitable to cover this topic. It's on my to-do list for rdap-sec -01. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Oct 11 03:59:57 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 88ECE21F862A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:59:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBchKjCmRhkp for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AB321F862B for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHamqvdFEDLzd/V0u+YXKlhFGG2bZ4zd@postini.com; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:59:56 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9BAxrsm027283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:59:53 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:59:53 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Ning Kong , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPzzy9Yjfsl0OZQ+2Yq6hudQAgYvyAADdGJYAADRhQAAAyOqmAAAP8VrA= Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:59:52 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69454D@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <001501cda690$77f1f720$67d5e560$@cnnic.cn> <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 10:59:57 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ning Kong > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:53 AM > To: 'Andy Newton'; 'John Levine'; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication >=20 >=20 > > Perhaps rdap-sec could describe various federated approaches much the > > same way it is outlining the authentication mechanisms. Having a > description > > of such things would probably be very useful to policy makers. > If the requirement can be accepted by the WG, I'd like to do this work > in the next version of rdap-sec. >=20 > > Also, I think rdap-sec should make clear the distinction between > > authentication and authorization. Again, something very useful for > > policy makers. > +1 > I also think authentication and authorization are technically two > things. I do, too. That's precisely why I started one discussion thread for authent= ication and another for authorization: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01671.html Scott From andy@arin.net Thu Oct 11 05:10:14 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 869F221F86BA for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:10:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gkfQ-XQ-q+BU for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8F421F866C for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 5A03F165351; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:10:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C6C1652E8; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.18) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:09:50 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:10:07 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Ning Kong , 'John Levine' , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPiKY1Eji2SBey8YiRsgP2LgAgYvyAADdGJYAADRhQAAAyOqmA///0OQA= Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:10:06 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 12:10:14 -0000 On 10/11/12 4:52 AM, "Ning Kong" wrote: > >> Perhaps rdap-sec could describe various federated approaches much the >> same way it is outlining the authentication mechanisms. Having a >description >> of such things would probably be very useful to policy makers. >If the requirement can be accepted by the WG, I'd like to do this work in >the next version of rdap-sec. Well, I don't know about a requirement, as in I don't think we can say all servers MUST participate in federated authentication or any authentication. However, listing out federated authentication schemes and providing a taxonomy would most likely be very useful to a lot of people. Certainly it would not be an exhaustive list and other schemes could be created later, but allowing policy makers and proposal writers to say "we endorse scheme ABC in RFC ABC" would be beneficial. -andy From andy@arin.net Thu Oct 11 05:11:47 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 B154421F872A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:11:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OEITTC80BPON for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8785D21F86D3 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 0FA14165351; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5C71652E8; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:11:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.18) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:11:27 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:11:41 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Ning Kong , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPiKY1Eji2SBey8YiRsgP2LgAgYvyAADdGJYAADRhQAAAyOqmAAARxtAD//9EagA== Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69454D@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <226A172E71BB7344A076D74235268BF2@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 12:11:47 -0000 On 10/11/12 6:59 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > >I do, too. That's precisely why I started one discussion thread for >authentication and another for authorization: > >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01671.html My bad, Scott! I was reading the rdap-sec draft and lost focus on the thread. -andy From johnl@taugh.com Thu Oct 11 05:16:40 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 BEA9421F853A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:16:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMnozNoa3r7N for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:16:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 1789021F84E2 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25884 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2012 12:16:33 -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=6519.5076b8a1.k1210; bh=v328roMlKOmTBrfjWYclWknwOn3DvWPl0MW2F++BEaM=; b=fVKWzyBtj8t8RxjO6A2BQHlbOnh5jnqFA8U83+x+Vo+A1uczlPOPpxqjBM2REOHSPQFmngD0Cp1untyPeF+MdZo5ekkO1/VKkZ1AMZkzgW0QaJ2mHw/QnxmlEfYo9GTfiS2M0UGg/F7EvhIr3YWUSX8w8Af43EVEQ9I9NQgtUoc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=6519.5076b8a1.k1210; bh=v328roMlKOmTBrfjWYclWknwOn3DvWPl0MW2F++BEaM=; b=s5/00WRtGnWHBoGPRUw1DhKM0hHQbRhyiQQDOr9hbRdhmb5OvvRgAKxTJwotDcb2dEuynWq5Py6f1UeKZ6zQo9hmOzy1z+/yc4ZEj6SeCh3VuKO/AaF8a9HiRAJn42JQyZjFbBH52xB5Z4ZardeNNkqKtVKGLIN+mlXZklFwqNI= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 11 Oct 2012 12:16:11 -0000 Date: 11 Oct 2012 08:16:33 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Andy Newton" 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] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 11 Oct 2012 12:16:40 -0000 > I don't think we can say all servers MUST participate in federated > authentication or any authentication. Clearly not, it's a local policy thing. > However, listing out federated authentication schemes and providing a > taxonomy would most likely be very useful to a lot of people. That was my thinking -- if we can encourage people to agree on a small set of schemes, it's that much more likely that the servers you want to use will all handle the same one. R's, John From zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Thu Oct 11 19:21:12 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 C3C5F21F84F6 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:21:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ld-DG3HFtpyg for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 916DB21F84F5 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo95e6383c) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:20:55 +0800 From: "Linlin Zhou" To: "'Andy Newton'" , "'Ning Kong'" , "'John Levine'" , References: <010201cda78d$c3d0c9c0$4b725d40$@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:20:54 +0800 Message-ID: <000301cda820$359e9ea0$a0dbdbe0$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac2lU1nPiKY1Eji2SBey8YiRsgP2LgAgYvyAADdGJYAADRhQAAAyOqmA///0OQD//xatEA== Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 12 Oct 2012 02:21:12 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Andy Newton > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:10 PM > To: Ning Kong; 'John Levine'; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authentication > > On 10/11/12 4:52 AM, "Ning Kong" wrote: > > > > >> Perhaps rdap-sec could describe various federated approaches much the > >> same way it is outlining the authentication mechanisms. Having a > >description > >> of such things would probably be very useful to policy makers. > >If the requirement can be accepted by the WG, I'd like to do this work > >in the next version of rdap-sec. > > Well, I don't know about a requirement, as in I don't think we can say all servers > MUST participate in federated authentication or any authentication. > I don't think all the server should in the federated authentication mechanism. Generally speaking, I think there are two implementation methods, one is centralized mode, the other is alliance mode that any two servers can be authenticated by each other. But the realization approach can be the same essentially. > However, listing out federated authentication schemes and providing a > taxonomy would most likely be very useful to a lot of people. Certainly it would > not be an exhaustive list and other schemes could be created later, but allowing > policy makers and proposal writers to say "we endorse scheme ABC in RFC ABC" > would be beneficial. Agree. From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Oct 11 21:05:29 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 DF46D21F84FE for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dc4uhpvMPe+X for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8973321F84FD for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:05:23 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:05:11 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:04:59 +0800 Message-ID: <01b701cda82e$bf9c0e90$3ed42bb0$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2oJlgRtaHIIukgTomzDF6pihPMsg== Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 12 Oct 2012 04:05:30 -0000 Hi all, I'm still concerned about the i18n issues of WEIRDS. I notice that the i18n problem is explicitly raised by the Charter, but AFAIK this problem is not discussed too much on the mailing list or the current WG documents. I'd like to start this thread focused on i18n issues in order to make sure whether the text in the Internationalization Considerations Section of using-http-00 needs to be improved. On the other hand, I hope we can find some missing important things which should be covered within this topic through this thread. IMHO, indicating language/script in response may be a potential missing thing of i18n issues. I wonder whether the 7.3 section of draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 is worth being reconsidered and covered by the using-http draft. Any thoughts or comments on this topic are appreciated. Cheers, Ning From zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Sun Oct 14 06:24:55 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 80CD221F8455 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:24:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3gVp5joE6m8 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B0DC621F8458 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo95e6383c) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:24:41 +0800 From: "Linlin Zhou" To: Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:24:37 +0800 Message-ID: <013201cdaa0f$447879f0$cd696dd0$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0133_01CDAA52.529BB9F0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac2qDX3mKG5T9cPBS0Sc9X1Dl5PEpgAAAukg Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: [weirds] FW: I-D Action: draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00.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: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:24:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0133_01CDAA52.529BB9F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, This is a 00 draft about object inventory analysis process and result of 124 domain name registries. Any comments are appreciated. Linlin Zhou -----Original Message----- From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, Oct 14, 2012 20:35 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol Object Inventory Analysis Author(s) : Linlin Zhou Ning Kong Sean Shen Filename : draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2012-10-14 Abstract: WHOIS output elements from 124 TLDs were collected and analyzed. This document describes the statistical analysis process and result of WHOIS information. The purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to facilitate discussions of domain name data objects in WHOIS response. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ------=_NextPart_000_0133_01CDAA52.529BB9F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear = all,

 

This is a 00 draft about object inventory analysis process = and result of 124 domain name registries. Any comments are = appreciated.

 

Linlin Zhou

-----Original = Message-----

From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.o= rg [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces= @ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org

Sent: = Sunday, Oct 14, 2012 20:35 PM

To: i-d-announce@ietf.org

Subject: I-D Action: = draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00.txt

 

A New Internet-Draft is available = from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

 

 

         = Title           : = Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol Object Inventory = Analysis

         = Author(s)       : Linlin = Zhou

          =             &= nbsp;   Ning Kong

          =             &= nbsp;   Sean Shen

         = Filename        : = draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00.txt

         = Pages           : = 15

         = Date            : = 2012-10-14

 

Abstract:

   WHOIS output elements from 124 TLDs were = collected and analyzed.

   This document describes the statistical = analysis process and result

   of WHOIS = information.  The purpose of this document is to build = an

   object inventory to facilitate discussions of = domain name data

   objects in WHOIS = response.

 

 

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft = is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-ob= ject-inventory

 

There's also a htmlized version available = at:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inve= ntory-00

 

 

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP = at:

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-= drafts/

------=_NextPart_000_0133_01CDAA52.529BB9F0-- From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 15 06:27:12 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 EAAF121F8753 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAJRvn2CA+wR for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og110.obsmtp.com (exprod6og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FC321F878B for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob110.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHwPL5hIuGCFrCyFJkFJ/6t9QYM+A1OK@postini.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:27:12 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9FDR7PU029032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:27:11 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:27:07 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements: Non-repudiation Thread-Index: Ac2q2MSwJRiw9kxVSaStv8SJwDo/ew== Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:27:05 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 15 Oct 2012 13:27:13 -0000 I haven't been able to find any requirements for non-repudiation services. = In the interest of clarity it may help to repeat the definition of "non-rep= udiation service" from RFC 4949: "A security service that provide protection against false denial of involve= ment in an association (especially a communication association that transfe= rs data)." Digital signatures are often used to provide this service. Does anyone know= of any requirements for signed queries or signed responses? Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 15 06:42:06 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 49B8E1F042B for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zaaDYQaOzqwO for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og105.obsmtp.com (exprod6og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D041F042A for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob105.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHwSrICNZ+2I+/wi1zL6YKokM/MxgQRA@postini.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:42:05 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9FDg1tQ006097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:42:03 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:42:01 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements: Availability Thread-Index: Ac2q2tnVT7QJ2YE1RGuDk9yjko8FiQ== Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:41:59 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 15 Oct 2012 13:42:06 -0000 There's a general DDoS security consideration that will need to be addresse= d. We can probably include a normative reference to RFC 4732 to address tha= t issue. I'm not aware of more specific availability requirements. Are there any? Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 15 06:57:12 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 C43B921F870A for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u0M8U3fEMdHE for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og107.obsmtp.com (exprod6og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0453C21F8707 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob107.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHwWN2P6pnLUInNwlpEHcIJhHHbN3jjG@postini.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:57:12 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9FDv8KW029986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:57:10 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:56:12 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements: Availability Thread-Index: Ac2q2tnVT7QJ2YE1RGuDk9yjko8FiQAADKLw Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:57:06 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 15 Oct 2012 13:57:12 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:42 AM > To: 'weirds@ietf.org' > Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability >=20 > There's a general DDoS security consideration that will need to be > addressed. We can probably include a normative reference to RFC 4732 to > address that issue. >=20 > I'm not aware of more specific availability requirements. Are there > any? I should note that the "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Repor= t" describes a need for abuse contacts. That need can be translated into a = "RDAP MUST provide the ability to manage abuse contacts" (feel free to sugg= est alternate text) requirement. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 15 07:07:32 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 3577E21F8747 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qai0b-wd2-6d for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og112.obsmtp.com (exprod6og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028FC21F8745 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob112.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHwYoIsdGOyuoVWIaKUbT/+3Lo28NOAc@postini.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:07:29 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9FE7OFg030353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:07:27 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:07:24 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Security Requirements: Data Integrity Thread-Index: Ac2q3mXV4mllICcTQtyt98SEPBv7iQ== Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:07:23 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6959A1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Data Integrity X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 15 Oct 2012 14:07:32 -0000 Data integrity ("The property that data has not been changed, destroyed, or= lost in an unauthorized or accidental manner") is another security service= for which I haven't been able to find specific protocol requirements. Ther= e's a lot of discussion of needs for data accuracy, but I don't think that'= s a protocol issue. Are there any data integrity requirements? Scott From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 09:34:23 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 5A74A21F8752; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:34:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uR+mjs2OerSf; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B8021F8666; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:34:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121015163422.14297.9412.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:34:22 -0700 Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.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: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:34:23 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Web Extensible Internet Registration Data= Service Working Group of the IETF. Title : LACNIC's Redirection Service for Number Resource RESTful= WHOIS Queries Author(s) : Carlos M. Martinez Arturo L. Servin Dario Gomez Gerardo Rada Filename : draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2012-10-15 Abstract: The traditional WHOIS protocol has several important shortcomings, and over the past few years several approaches to a better WHOIS have been discussed and proposed. Among these shortcomings, different registries operate different WHOIS services. For users this implies that several WHOIS queries to different registries may be necessary in order to obtain data for a given resource. This document describes a proof-of-concept redirection service for RESTful WHOIS queries as implemented by LACNIC. This service allows users to query a single WHOIS service and be redirected to the authoritative registry. The main goal of this document is to encourage discussion on the topics of Joint WHOIS services and query redirection in a RESTful WHOIS world. The solution implemented by LACNIC proposed here applies to numbering resources (IPv4, IPv6 and autonomous system numbers). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-weirds-redirects There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From superuser@gmail.com Mon Oct 15 09:54:19 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 E491F11E808A for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7U4FollZgkqj for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF91221F86BA for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so4091087lbo.31 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gZ5LgqTAVmsn7+1YgNWv48o5KHDKwkwsm+CjhZPSFyU=; b=Ci8p0YhlHPmjIS7HQS4HW4DS36tQ9JALIJ1Rpf+amnrTRQgsEFR1I7G6kKxRFMeeCH i/epiSquKhn37+ZRcGbg3yYm4WMOIXHygKi1ARg4ZvbDqglJ6z59pl50n7XJjDHu4V8S KrnuiaqMNvGe5C8Y8+E6VslkhKfKyclaGNm1VCEfKW5Nrd2m4QLT3iSxd2KhiTkR7S5C TTkNwzZAkIGmGi6LhuTKiyBZoHI12IbbbFB5hiGKOqYEUcd+WAIx3PWctZ7rtb2IgTqd 5FCZOcKIf+R29Y+PhT6XRWTKdO8yFXA8yJqbhvfSfs42sA25wGTcbCsdKi169ArbjIwi nsZA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.99.74 with SMTP id eo10mr4525945lbb.64.1350320056889; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:54:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] Security Requirements: Data Confidentiality X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 15 Oct 2012 16:54:20 -0000 Posting this on Scott's behalf, as he's having difficulty getting this message through to the list for some reason (but not others). I've sent a request to the Secretariat to investigate. -MSK > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 10:10 AM > To: 'weirds@ietf.org' > Subject: Security Requirements: Data Confidentiality > > I originally sent this message to the list on 10 October. I just > noticed that it isn't in the archives, so I'm sending it again. > > From "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Report": > > WHOIS services must provide mechanisms to protect the privacy of > registrants. > > A WHOIS service must discourage the harvesting and mining of its data. > > From RFC 3707: > > When a value in an answer to a query is given, the protocol MUST be > capable of tagging the value with the following labels: > > 1. do not redistribute > 2. special access granted > > The documents referenced above describe these requirements in the > context of protecting collected data. I have been unable to find any > specific mention of a requirement to protect data while in transit > between clients and servers, though it seems obvious that plaintext > authentication credentials (if used) would need to be protected. > > Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Oct 18 04:22:03 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 3171B21F86B8 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:22:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6hyWrsQZgZc9 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og111.obsmtp.com (exprod6og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D8421F8685 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob111.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUH/mWT+/LGHht+PfakikUrNwhScpI8zL@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:22:01 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9IBLwvN005812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:22:00 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:21:57 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHNqvLxnzlyZHPpkk6leuhuoI7CAJe+7Itg Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:21:56 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D696F31@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <20121015163422.14297.9412.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121015163422.14297.9412.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.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, 18 Oct 2012 11:22:03 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 12:34 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Web Extensible Internet Registration > Data Service Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : LACNIC's Redirection Service for Number > Resource RESTful WHOIS Queries I thought that the idea for draft-ietf-weirds-redirects was that it would b= e based on the earlier draft-lacnic-weirds-restwhois-redirects, but it woul= d be revised to describe a general redirection approach that could be used = for both number and name registries. Except for date and file name changes = draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00 is the same as draft-lacnic-weirds-restwhois= -redirects-00. Is it going to be updated? If so, when? Scott From carlosm3011@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 05:54:06 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 0746921F85C3 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:54:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id idGZ5GRZRFTK for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4D221F84A0 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gh0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g10so2403146ghb.31 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:54:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q6mE3F0/XRUGzVX1zInHO3iGhFFh7ba6Z6kvZA8uqeA=; b=xhhnSZzh5OKVGkfboSGYG47q37LxdOl52NmKs+oHOqdl5GP74s7KXyOOn/lI+M93i5 UuBf1V9mgoBFeYB85r4B6SkpFlOhsa/BMRK7EsVkwypzESW0YWJySwt71ebpUeMcN46c ax6NI8GMpKHm5j1pZoJcD4hnjHYfeOksQ4AcCSczOkoeddA81eAOlSoWNLAuWaaDnJjk uQTVuOcf4QYc3316QAtWUiay7AY9HR05EV0nqKXxCB698DXLilw85lhjIIqrBxXthYyj I1UHneyIxjr7EVbdyn6CfIrPef3GAo18wmNNNVk0/o2uNbDIXX+YE+T+wkeB/jdszEA0 axdQ== Received: by 10.236.144.137 with SMTP id n9mr20444769yhj.107.1350564839964; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.87.205]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l35sm23589285yhi.12.2012.10.18.05.53.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <507FFBE4.7070607@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:53:56 -0200 From: "Carlos M. Martinez" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" References: <20121015163422.14297.9412.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D696F31@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D696F31@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.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, 18 Oct 2012 12:54:06 -0000 Scott, Right now I re-spinned the draft to meet the -00 deadline. We have not yet received text/contributions from the names camp (although some people have expressed interest in doing so). We still have time for a -01 submission on 10/22 so if people from the names side are still interested, let me know. Since the at the last WEIRDS meeting the discussion problem of actually populating the redirection table (the bootstrapping problem) was postponed, and that the URL-conversion issues I describe in the draft redirects do not have much to it. Thus I believe the what Andy brought up on the list [1] was to have an informational i-d documenting actual redirection practices but the actual spec (just describing that 'servers SHOULD issue 301 redirects according to a redirection table) was to be included in the HTTP draft. Now, discussing this with Arturo, he seems to remember things a bit differently, more along the lines you mention, so maybe we should have a little discussion here on in ATL on the actual goal of the document. Cheers! ~Carlos [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01545.html On 10/18/12 9:21 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 12:34 PM >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Web Extensible Internet Registration >> Data Service Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : LACNIC's Redirection Service for Number >> Resource RESTful WHOIS Queries > > I thought that the idea for draft-ietf-weirds-redirects was that it would be based on the earlier draft-lacnic-weirds-restwhois-redirects, but it would be revised to describe a general redirection approach that could be used for both number and name registries. Except for date and file name changes draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00 is the same as draft-lacnic-weirds-restwhois-redirects-00. Is it going to be updated? If so, when? > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Oct 18 07:22:31 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 E305321F8850 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9zD9HoEeI6CK for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og116.obsmtp.com (exprod6og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3277121F8812 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob116.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIAQppY654nHoC9GBOo3rDGdf8Qt4r/p@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:22:31 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9IEMRDG011525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:22:30 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:22:27 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 Thread-Index: Ac2tO/8rSD7tgn7tTziAIy9qRsSfXQ== Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:22:26 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 18 Oct 2012 14:22:32 -0000 Mentioned by Steve Metalitz (a member of the Intellectual Property Constitu= ency) at the mic during yesterday's WHOIS update: 1. Add support for WhoWas [1] services. 2. Add info to responses to indicate when data elements have been validated= by a registry. Murray (in the role of WG chair panelist) made the point that our goal is t= o allow for protocol extensions to provide services like these. #2 implies = that there's a requirement for registry operators to implement a data valid= ation process, and as far as I know that doesn't currently exist. Scott [1] https://www.arin.net/resources/whowas/index.html From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Oct 18 07:25:19 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 F36F721F8830 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:25:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pgb-D1nDL54h for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A4421F87A9 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIARTET3fWcXa4ukMdt3gi7dY38WfzbQ@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:25:18 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9IEPF5G021665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:25:15 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:25:15 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Carlos M. Martinez" Thread-Topic: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHNrS+lFRYnHdPn70+RPz7yajNC3Je/Hg0g Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:25:14 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69711A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <20121015163422.14297.9412.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D696F31@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <507FFBE4.7070607@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <507FFBE4.7070607@gmail.com> 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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.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, 18 Oct 2012 14:25:19 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos M. Martinez [mailto:carlosm3011@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:54 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-00.txt >=20 > Now, discussing this with Arturo, he seems to remember things a bit > differently, more along the lines you mention, so maybe we should have > a little discussion here on in ATL on the actual goal of the document. That sounds like a good idea. Scott From andy@arin.net Thu Oct 18 10:27:42 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 CFE1221F871D for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Qfz4rAilZw2 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B2A21F86EC for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 87AA9213683; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2513921367E; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:27:41 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:27:25 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:27:40 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability Thread-Index: Ac2q2tnVT7QJ2YE1RGuDk9yjko8FiQAADKLwAJ60FIA= Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:27:39 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 18 Oct 2012 17:27:42 -0000 On 10/15/12 9:57 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > >I should note that the "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final >Report" describes a need for abuse contacts. That need can be translated >into a "RDAP MUST provide the ability to manage abuse contacts" (feel >free to suggest alternate text) requirement. Manage? I could go with view, display, expose, etc=8A, but not manage. -andy From andy@arin.net Thu Oct 18 10:30:50 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 B521221F8776 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:30:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNHURE0rxH46 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A31921F8757 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id B4B63213683; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:30:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D70E21367E; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:30:47 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:30:00 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:30:46 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Ning Kong , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Internationalization Issues Thread-Index: Ac2oJlgRtaHIIukgTomzDF6pihPMsgFL/VEA Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:30:45 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01b701cda82e$bf9c0e90$3ed42bb0$@cnnic.cn> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.56] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9E16B968B60BB3468666E739279658B4@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 18 Oct 2012 17:30:50 -0000 On 10/12/12 12:04 AM, "Ning Kong" wrote: >IMHO, indicating language/script in response may be a potential missing >thing of i18n issues. I wonder whether the 7.3 section of >draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 is worth being reconsidered and >covered >by the using-http draft. This sounds like a good idea. But is there any reference to an explanation of what client software is to do with these language tags? -andy From shollenbeck@verisign.com Thu Oct 18 10:49:57 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 D1F3821F875C for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:49:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7QXZuwYRGPqx for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com (exprod6og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C1C21F852A for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIBBQ6V6SNW5GACFZKRLMflzDNg+plpj@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:49:56 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9IHnojN018267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:49:50 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:49:50 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Andy Newton , "'weirds@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability Thread-Index: Ac2q2tnVT7QJ2YE1RGuDk9yjko8FiQAADKLwAJ60FIAAALkSAA== Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:49:49 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69734E@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 18 Oct 2012 17:49:57 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Newton [mailto:andy@arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:28 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'weirds@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability >=20 > On 10/15/12 9:57 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" > wrote: > > > >I should note that the "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final > >Report" describes a need for abuse contacts. That need can be > >translated into a "RDAP MUST provide the ability to manage abuse > >contacts" (feel free to suggest alternate text) requirement. >=20 >=20 > Manage? I could go with view, display, expose, etc=A9, but not manage. Agreed, bad choice of word. Thanks for the feedback. Scott From bje@apnic.net Thu Oct 18 17:40:49 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 7813421F8477 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:40:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DyPjJvHfDFyf for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BB321F8475 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.82] (unknown [59.167.209.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C44B6894; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:40:41 +1000 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ABA883CB-D311-4CB0-90A1-EAACE9C5751B"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\)) From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:40:40 +1000 Message-Id: <2FE64D12-55AE-4C8A-8AFE-AC22E779073D@apnic.net> References: To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1498) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 00:40:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_ABA883CB-D311-4CB0-90A1-EAACE9C5751B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Andy, On 19/10/2012, at 3:30 AM, Andy Newton wrote: > On 10/12/12 12:04 AM, "Ning Kong" wrote: >=20 >> IMHO, indicating language/script in response may be a potential = missing >> thing of i18n issues. I wonder whether the 7.3 section of >> draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 is worth being reconsidered and >> covered >> by the using-http draft. >=20 >=20 > This sounds like a good idea. But is there any reference to an = explanation > of what client software is to do with these language tags? Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? = Auto-translate? Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if = indicated as possible via a Vary header? Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, but = there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, varying) = ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple language = options available for many response fields. Byron --Apple-Mail=_ABA883CB-D311-4CB0-90A1-EAACE9C5751B Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEBjCCBAIw ggLqoAMCAQICCCoPITf60ZNDMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIw EAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNi YW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMB4XDTExMTEyODAxNTEzNloXDTEy MTEyNzAxNTEzNlowgZIxGTAXBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEBDAliamUtc3RhZmYxEjAQBgNVBAMMCWJqZS1z dGFmZjEOMAwGA1UEKgwFQnlyb24xETAPBgNVBAQMCEVsbGFjb3R0MQ8wDQYDVQQLDAZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVzdGFmZjCCASIwDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANVQo/BOmY5CCWNeAldlgoWZKOzIZpOsFzD6NB2oAErtclDu uiZsXfl+L97UOwUlhu1eGlY5gKuAhGcrEBvDgTT1eEr3vkdKILhJw78s5n8eLOWrmhPKBnW8gSn9 7MbAxVQx3V1/RpToKAF8cR4il03Z7mveaBQbaivM2jReHcgfJPt9w0qhTVZO2POLuVClRcExaNt1 h+QdMLa6VU5x7rJo9JFqjTAvJzMApW+WY/7oumR9+4a9ZGThlETI2b83XAMrrJ7DHm237Jskgl+X FGILIq8zOhNiAbhEg+gAyJ8bOzwwydDY+ggWQ466duZZq4wxmr1+YhxVf51v2R5MSicCAwEAAaN6 MHgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFIQXSivz3cLpaFy23DdhpGhyyo5pMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAU4D23klvuLqOyPnnbRaswQi8BS6wwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgHyMBgGA1UdEQQRMA+BDWJqZUBh cG5pYy5uZXQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAEk9zi8BTUEY4rqDGEIFDNIpmX/yS3fTah39Mele pV93sRsjqLy2G47vhhnkgSTEWV2jJOD7tjzjswxtWUL6KG36dUDVL3XbQ1OObxkiDJbqje4BoWrd a8/5PoIPC0hkSDXGoitvoXkL8Pd9x9Y+kyMlKo1C0lk5bCUG4yjk5wVLuSSm5m+KZ3+YVdPp6dKp C0DRhvFdsrz2zIOT/sWheCQO0HRU300UYngB/xoqc1KWH2dROIUhLqwtyoCQbQKQjW9C+JMMw2Ij vfVXJZGMWjbp5l8RQeUSJ+0vVJXJbIL6PfEsyQupUV3AJsSTRmtllqzCBCz2Abd14xyeqw0eJfwx ggMtMIIDKQIBATB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAU BgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYC Y2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBgzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMjEwMTkwMDQwNDFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQp xpol8w5zb/ghivLunWKAyPQ6uzCBjwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGBMH8wczERMA8GA1UEAwwIc3RhZmYt Y2ExEjAQBgNVBAsMCVRlY2huaWNhbDEWMBQGA1UECgwNQVBOSUMgUHR5IEx0ZDERMA8GA1UEBwwI QnJpc2JhbmUxEjAQBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgJjYTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQVUCCCoPITf60ZNDMIGRBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBgaB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQB GRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBNz1QFIluEQiKe Qd0hvIKt5RTRoXNblobmw7STqH6ln/+KzkEQp5hWWloXjTAWJ67D+no3ooIxdxGATemVIMJEGlAu EL+yqP9IeI4BbNww2YghVETxr1DhLvTqjkOqWE0eSEMfUcGvBIvzCissZe1ikiTGt3+SC0AOHcEg rOndUI/jqSMrBSKlSnuf6Mu9GASinGAYumkc/h0XekFQfagGLKuzkiOigh2Bg/ExBADXTdbns+4l LK/Ew/JnPuSEEDAmmxxhU048kZEGwto+AuQhW3OPA+jeT0KFBb6QGc+7GPsGB+ZfPjjlRLGBYhnL Od/DRru8zo2YP/5QMsD3WRvUAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_ABA883CB-D311-4CB0-90A1-EAACE9C5751B-- From superuser@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 00:57:16 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 93DBB21F859E for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3hVrySuw-WGa for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F39821F85AF for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so144843lam.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=e35dOgug66uxzsKCY4kxcvqvP+/LVgEQVdaFC/Y9tsg=; b=W3KfBXrV+MfbzJHAe3ZfNKBLks60wSgVVAV1GA+oZTrALbLbJIAo9fCQx5IN5w+nI1 BpVcJCA3K3WG8SbiiLHBS9L6cUrTrP1qFJR82LcWKp8DriQQrL6k1saiUuC5zh/jU5nz FehOF3ZO+dDzVBtJR8z0QMVbjnY3v51ZTWVhQ+7P3f/ZFwpzFigp7JWDeyZhW7bn3eN3 qVB+gnfkapwl17J+MNHUNhjyUFyQZPRJ5/t7WOZ4+wXb0k/JigdgNIhdqxZMm+3sIdjN 6BiNAo8XNjTsPxt4dzrpbbi9gEmrQWAAJNGQybx0zrpGzX+VviFfLWGxVTtWurRYBk9k bjDA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.104.77 with SMTP id gc13mr427044lab.16.1350633434632; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:57:14 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 07:57:16 -0000 Colleagues, I attended part of the ICANN 45 conference in Toronto this week. I was asked by a couple of staffers to come and give an update on the progress of WEIRDS and answer some questions that various constituencies had. This is a quick report mostly for your information; I don't think we have any immediate action items here, but we might want to chat about some of what I heard. In general, this is a topic of big interest among the various constituencies. On Tuesday I gave the same brief update presentation to the ccTLD, registry, registrar, and ISP constituencies. The questions they had were: 1) One ccTLD participant brought up the "Why should we bother?" argument. Basically, there's a cost for them to provide the service and very little immediate benefit. I made it clear that in my role as a working group co-chair and participant, there's nothing we're bringing to the table that can or should compel anyone to implement it; we're simply interested in describing the format of the question and the format of the answer. ICANN has no policy control over ccTLDs either, so there's no pressure there. I hinted, rather, that the impetus to implement may well come from the community; a security vendor, for example, who relies on the availability of WHOIS data to make a determination about the source of some traffic may well conclude that the non-availability of WHOIS service about that source is an indication that those sources aren't good net citizens and perhaps have something to hide, and default to a defensive posture, which would leave those sources very unhappy. Unfortunately I don't believe that point was heeded. 2) The ISP constituency asked whether we intend to support thick and thin WHOIS services equally. The protocol we're designing, per my recollection, is actually agnostic on this point; it could serve both equally. 3) Several times the question of policy came up. I made it clear that our work would simply enable policies at the discretion of the operator, and not enforce any particular policy. They all seemed to like that. 4) During the registrar session they asked about timing between ICANN beginning to discuss contractual language around WEIRDS adoption versus our timelines. I told them what our proposed new milestones list looks like and also told them they could perhaps declare some of our drafts as "core" and mandatory for immediate adoption while waiting for others as later optional add-ons. On Wednesday there was a more general session. Some of the points raised there: 5) Recent ICANN reports and statements include some requirements they've established of which WEIRDS may not be aware. I invited them to bring these to our attention (it would've been nice, of course, for this to have happened during our chartering process) specifically for consideration, though with no promise that any of them would be adopted. That is, I would prefer to have it on the record that we discussed and rejected them rather than not discussing them at all. The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable historical data about domain registrations) and some kind of certification of the validity of the returned data. This latter one might be a consideration for the security document. 6) ICANN is proposing to support open source development of WEIRDS client and server code to encourage adoption. That may or may not be possible to start before the WG concludes, but we should commit to supporting that work as well. 7) ICANN has commissioned some deep statistical studies about who's using WHOIS data and how today. When the report is published, we should take a look at it to see if there's anything in there we need to take as input to our work. At the same time, they were unaware of the WHOIS data inventory work being undertaken by a subset of WEIRDS, and that might be information they would find useful as well. Let me know if anyone has questions about these points. Also, any of you that attended these sessions and have other feedback to relay, please feel free to do so. -MSK From sm@resistor.net Fri Oct 19 02:41:35 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 5A1BC21F84F6 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:41:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXU61HIRlIaL for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709D521F8489 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:41:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9J9fRqu007008; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:41:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350639691; bh=x+JM36MhdiIq0YtUwsJ63XvmwYTS8sbIuhWEnjwvAkA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=sa0LwDIRgzOsTPWUU/MRaZHRLxfrk6E2Ht1Z8UAyDyfTWLVYPuS3fge+EuhLIe9mA VtEBy/RZltt6E8Y8qN9WxQ10lCqyyBJCdNBXkWctcIk9iHwqwRWcOe23+W/CvcLKwn Q9bkMRL17HnlYTK3Oj4K3MgimucrAH2l8WqtAg7A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350639691; i=@resistor.net; bh=x+JM36MhdiIq0YtUwsJ63XvmwYTS8sbIuhWEnjwvAkA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iCP2V1DH3EZCSFTrOMK9oZ0AFpR5HZt9Fk+BqmF/QDpofJ1yBMOghdEVoTHnOCRzg ZPaIe1lK0mJKpm6HkLXFDF4c54x2ejZ2/ezi/OF4vBW35wmnpwKhNw9yooCHF2wXy/ N/XgkeIGvAfpK0InXzpC+EPiakB2RUYQShEyf3D0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019010429.0ace8518@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:01:49 -0700 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 09:41:35 -0000 Hi Murray, Thanks for the report. At 00:57 19-10-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >6) ICANN is proposing to support open source development of WEIRDS >client and server code to encourage adoption. That may or may not be >possible to start before the WG concludes, but we should commit to >supporting that work as well. The RFP for the above was issued in May 2012. It's not like this is some new initiative. It would be highly unusual for an IETF working group to commit to support the above. >7) ICANN has commissioned some deep statistical studies about who's That may be related to the survey where it is explained that "for the non-technical think about DOS commands before Windows became available". That does not sound like deep statistical studies to me. >using WHOIS data and how today. When the report is published, we >should take a look at it to see if there's anything in there we need >to take as input to our work. At the same time, they were unaware of >the WHOIS data inventory work being undertaken by a subset of WEIRDS, >and that might be information they would find useful as well. I read the above as meaning that ICANN is not aware of the Whois data inventory work which was discussed on the mailing list. That's odd given that there have been some ICANN folks posting to the mailing list. Regards, -sm From andy@arin.net Fri Oct 19 04:34:26 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 B0F4C21F8608 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CEfdba56TN1 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E673221F846F for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id B9B00213686; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16129213671; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.20) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:33:43 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:34:00 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Byron Ellacott Thread-Topic: [weirds] Internationalization Issues Thread-Index: Ac2oJlgRtaHIIukgTomzDF6pihPMsgFL/VEAABdlrAAADm99AA== Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:33:59 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2FE64D12-55AE-4C8A-8AFE-AC22E779073D@apnic.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <266CBAA0103DBA4BA024FE232F1B05BD@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 11:34:26 -0000 On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? Can you explain this further? > Auto-translate? This seems to be the number 1 use case I have found while searching the interwebs. I would say that automatic language translation of social data is next to useless and sometimes harmful, and doing so with technical data is inappropriate. > Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >possible via a Vary header? That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple language tags in the response. >Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, but >there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, varying) >ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple language >options available for many response fields. Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query it? That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. Are there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? -andy From andy@arin.net Fri Oct 19 04:37:32 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 B695B21F861C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:37:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-ZxYxO+ENWf for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AE021F846F for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 4C180165333; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1091165328; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:37:27 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:37:09 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:37:27 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrc9dfcnO296yt0iu3wqvXLxM15fAgJuA Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:37:25 +0000 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/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 11:37:32 -0000 On 10/19/12 3:57 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable >historical data about domain registrations) We have a WHOWAS service. It is a much different critter than Whois. Asking for a WHOWAS service is much more than putting a REST interface atop a Whois server. While such thing is interesting and I don't want to speak against the desire, the effort can be an order of magnitude greater than RDAP as it is currently specified. I think this is out of scope. -andy From shollenbeck@verisign.com Fri Oct 19 04:41:48 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 D400521F85AE for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:41:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5P9FrozbTqcd for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og114.obsmtp.com (exprod6og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD77521F861C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIE8exGUDByXURruClwoqGbTzfd9BySx@postini.com; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:41:47 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9JBfi4R020536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:41:46 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:41:43 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrc9dChJp5DVTEEKmK9ZuL3K8aZfAgJuAgAAAY5A= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:41:42 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69D894@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 11:41:48 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andy Newton > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 7:37 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy; weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report >=20 > On 10/19/12 3:57 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >=20 > >The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable > >historical data about domain registrations) >=20 >=20 > We have a WHOWAS service. It is a much different critter than Whois. > Asking for a WHOWAS service is much more than putting a REST interface > atop a Whois server. While such thing is interesting and I don't want > to speak against the desire, the effort can be an order of magnitude > greater than RDAP as it is currently specified. I think this is out of > scope. That was my reaction when I heard the question from the audience. It's more= than what we're chartered to do. Scott From aservin@lacnic.net Fri Oct 19 05:15:38 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 812FC21F86A1 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmSnXs0cyJrx for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5B321F86A0 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:a53b:4b2a:10e6:ab42]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C6330846E for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:15:36 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <50814464.8090305@lacnic.net> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:15:32 -0200 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 12:15:38 -0000 Thanks for the report. I was a bit worried that ICANN (as policy-entity not the people that work there and have been very helpful in the process) wanted to make and set protocols around whois. Now it seems very clear that both IETF and ICANN have a very clear idea of their responsibilities and the scope of their work. Cheers, as On 19/10/2012 05:57, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Colleagues, > > I attended part of the ICANN 45 conference in Toronto this week. I > was asked by a couple of staffers to come and give an update on the > progress of WEIRDS and answer some questions that various > constituencies had. This is a quick report mostly for your > information; I don't think we have any immediate action items here, > but we might want to chat about some of what I heard. > > In general, this is a topic of big interest among the various > constituencies. On Tuesday I gave the same brief update presentation > to the ccTLD, registry, registrar, and ISP constituencies. The > questions they had were: > > 1) One ccTLD participant brought up the "Why should we bother?" > argument. Basically, there's a cost for them to provide the service > and very little immediate benefit. I made it clear that in my role as > a working group co-chair and participant, there's nothing we're > bringing to the table that can or should compel anyone to implement > it; we're simply interested in describing the format of the question > and the format of the answer. ICANN has no policy control over ccTLDs > either, so there's no pressure there. I hinted, rather, that the > impetus to implement may well come from the community; a security > vendor, for example, who relies on the availability of WHOIS data to > make a determination about the source of some traffic may well > conclude that the non-availability of WHOIS service about that source > is an indication that those sources aren't good net citizens and > perhaps have something to hide, and default to a defensive posture, > which would leave those sources very unhappy. Unfortunately I don't > believe that point was heeded. > > 2) The ISP constituency asked whether we intend to support thick and > thin WHOIS services equally. The protocol we're designing, per my > recollection, is actually agnostic on this point; it could serve both > equally. > > 3) Several times the question of policy came up. I made it clear that > our work would simply enable policies at the discretion of the > operator, and not enforce any particular policy. They all seemed to > like that. > > 4) During the registrar session they asked about timing between ICANN > beginning to discuss contractual language around WEIRDS adoption > versus our timelines. I told them what our proposed new milestones > list looks like and also told them they could perhaps declare some of > our drafts as "core" and mandatory for immediate adoption while > waiting for others as later optional add-ons. > > On Wednesday there was a more general session. Some of the points raised there: > > 5) Recent ICANN reports and statements include some requirements > they've established of which WEIRDS may not be aware. I invited them > to bring these to our attention (it would've been nice, of course, for > this to have happened during our chartering process) specifically for > consideration, though with no promise that any of them would be > adopted. That is, I would prefer to have it on the record that we > discussed and rejected them rather than not discussing them at all. > The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable > historical data about domain registrations) and some kind of > certification of the validity of the returned data. This latter one > might be a consideration for the security document. > > 6) ICANN is proposing to support open source development of WEIRDS > client and server code to encourage adoption. That may or may not be > possible to start before the WG concludes, but we should commit to > supporting that work as well. > > 7) ICANN has commissioned some deep statistical studies about who's > using WHOIS data and how today. When the report is published, we > should take a look at it to see if there's anything in there we need > to take as input to our work. At the same time, they were unaware of > the WHOIS data inventory work being undertaken by a subset of WEIRDS, > and that might be information they would find useful as well. > > Let me know if anyone has questions about these points. Also, any of > you that attended these sessions and have other feedback to relay, > please feel free to do so. > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From wendy@seltzer.org Fri Oct 19 05:43:19 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 A37E921F8596 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:43:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jyas3EzmPupd for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seltzer.org (peppercorn.seltzer.org [166.84.7.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D9321F8594 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:43:15 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 12:43:19 -0000 On 10/19/2012 03:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 5) Recent ICANN reports and statements include some requirements > they've established of which WEIRDS may not be aware. I invited them > to bring these to our attention (it would've been nice, of course, for > this to have happened during our chartering process) specifically for > consideration, though with no promise that any of them would be > adopted. That is, I would prefer to have it on the record that we > discussed and rejected them rather than not discussing them at all. > The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable > historical data about domain registrations) and some kind of > certification of the validity of the returned data. The second one (or a variant third) I heard was a field/flag for whether data had been validated. There's (contested) discussion in ICANN contract negotiations about requiring data validation or verification for domain name registration, so it might be desirable to indicate on a per-record or per-field basis whether data had been validated or identity verified. --Wendy > This latter one > might be a consideration for the security document. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From shollenbeck@verisign.com Fri Oct 19 06:23:33 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 38FB021F8475 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rqAcHDbcTcxW for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og117.obsmtp.com (exprod6og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E90D21F8639 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob117.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIFUUq6epUijJ1H5j1WUBXijnITXa4CE@postini.com; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:23:32 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9JDNQkN023920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:23:26 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:23:25 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Wendy Seltzer , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrfdOChJp5DVTEEKmK9ZuL3K8aZfAnOpQ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:23:25 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> In-Reply-To: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 13:23:33 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:43 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report >=20 > On 10/19/2012 03:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > 5) Recent ICANN reports and statements include some requirements > > they've established of which WEIRDS may not be aware. I invited them > > to bring these to our attention (it would've been nice, of course, > for > > this to have happened during our chartering process) specifically for > > consideration, though with no promise that any of them would be > > adopted. That is, I would prefer to have it on the record that we > > discussed and rejected them rather than not discussing them at all. > > The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable > > historical data about domain registrations) and some kind of > > certification of the validity of the returned data. >=20 > The second one (or a variant third) I heard was a field/flag for > whether > data had been validated. There's (contested) discussion in ICANN > contract negotiations about requiring data validation or verification > for domain name registration, so it might be desirable to indicate on a > per-record or per-field basis whether data had been validated or > identity verified. How does one "validate" a domain name, name server, or IP address, or is th= is really about contact information? Scott From dblumenthal@pir.org Fri Oct 19 06:43:41 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 01BD321F853C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:43:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pl4mwckaoEj1 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pir.org (mail.pir.org [207.87.85.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFA521F8584 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PIR-MAIL-01.PIR.com ([192.168.27.12]) by pir-mail-01 ([192.168.27.12]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:43:38 -0400 From: Don Blumenthal To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Wendy Seltzer , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:43:34 -0400 Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: Ac2t/71Ww7cFqWy8SJG7Zx8/wxFOvg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 13:43:41 -0000 On 10/19/12 9:23 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer >> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:43 AM >> To: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report >>=20 >> On 10/19/2012 03:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > 5) Recent ICANN reports and statements include some requirements >> > they've established of which WEIRDS may not be aware. I invited them >> > to bring these to our attention (it would've been nice, of course, >> for >> > this to have happened during our chartering process) specifically for >> > consideration, though with no promise that any of them would be >> > adopted. That is, I would prefer to have it on the record that we >> > discussed and rejected them rather than not discussing them at all. >> > The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable >> > historical data about domain registrations) and some kind of >> > certification of the validity of the returned data. >>=20 >> The second one (or a variant third) I heard was a field/flag for >> whether >> data had been validated. There's (contested) discussion in ICANN >> contract negotiations about requiring data validation or verification >> for domain name registration, so it might be desirable to indicate on a >> per-record or per-field basis whether data had been validated or >> identity verified. > >How does one "validate" a domain name, name server, or IP address, or is >this really about contact information? > >Scott It's the most recent in the eternal Whois accuracy debate, this time around if and when registrars should check registration contact information. Don=20 From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Oct 19 07:28:17 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 CB60721F86FF for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id arOjn+iJCkua for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E0421F8707 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.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 mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE9618A031 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:28:13 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 14:28:17 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:23:25PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > How does one "validate" a domain name, name server, or IP address, or is this really about contact information? > It is of course about contact data, but actually there is a possible way to use this for IP addresses and name servers: some registries have a policy of regularly checking delegations for cross-cut matches, and undertaking administrative steps against registrations that don't do this according to policy. The large gTLDs don't, but some ccTLDs do. That could perhaps be useful information, becuase sometimes resolution problems boil down to mistakes at the zone cut. When troubleshooting, you'd be able to tell whether the registry thought the delegation data was correct at some point in the past. You'd need a "checked on" attribute for this to be useful. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From aservin@lacnic.net Fri Oct 19 07:49:40 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 6DB8D21F8585 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZBYkL6rAmGk3 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD02921F857A for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:f53e:fa07:7542:77fd]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894CC30843C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:49:37 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:49:32 -0200 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 14:49:40 -0000 Perhaps a new field in the objects on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response, i.e { "handle" : "XXXX", "names": [ "Joe Bob, Inc.", "Bobby Joe Shopping" ], ... "validated": [yes], } Regards, as On 19/10/2012 12:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:23:25PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> >> How does one "validate" a domain name, name server, or IP address, or is this really about contact information? >> > > It is of course about contact data, but actually there is a possible > way to use this for IP addresses and name servers: some registries > have a policy of regularly checking delegations for cross-cut matches, > and undertaking administrative steps against registrations that don't > do this according to policy. The large gTLDs don't, but some ccTLDs > do. > > That could perhaps be useful information, becuase sometimes resolution > problems boil down to mistakes at the zone cut. When troubleshooting, > you'd be able to tell whether the registry thought the delegation data > was correct at some point in the past. You'd need a "checked on" > attribute for this to be useful. > > A > From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Oct 19 07:54:16 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 5C65121F874A for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.613 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmgOgK+7GWH5 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E48E21F85C4 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.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 mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CE8A8A031 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:54:10 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121019145408.GC22660@mx1.yitter.info> References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 14:54:16 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:49:32PM -0200, Arturo Servin wrote: > > Perhaps a new field in the objects on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response, i.e > > { > "handle" : "XXXX", > "names": [ "Joe Bob, Inc.", "Bobby Joe Shopping" ], > ... > "validated": [yes], > > } I'd say valdidated-date or something. The presence of the field indicates validation, and the date tells you when. It's no use to know that data was validated at some point in the past, if you can't tell when it happened. (Having validated my address when I registered some names would tell you nothing about whether it's right today.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From sm@resistor.net Fri Oct 19 08:20:16 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 E0D6D21F847B for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yHFeNpCds2VV for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C090F21F846C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:20:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9JFK79X026947; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:20:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350660014; bh=u+Ynom1vLZmdawRcrnIvbt8g6ivhQc0uIFfeAK0+1zE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2nm5s9puNfKzGysctL3MhgMFPRlqw4md2wZSK9AHCiJo2EHEKd2YqjmOAp+/GY1Pu N5cvOu//CvBMTr7dsVWZB1xcRTaT5WTs+3rmltmHdzpt4AxT4VmA9k3FNhdRYF6xnn +RHaTnmsG4Kg1F5GIIkVYB0bGburCOj35sWQHbH8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350660014; i=@resistor.net; bh=u+Ynom1vLZmdawRcrnIvbt8g6ivhQc0uIFfeAK0+1zE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=QxEZzXvlrqFngm5Rsd207LBlPBGfm5iDzUV7U9rhpqjmSWYwWQzNTez2f4ElwuiB/ QwB34/sxHvJ63UI1h41RSoyjvHuViZwyV1lUDs0n764VtgiVuQ605q07AIM5KBbnc5 l7F12x/kQfvtYY7FLUqcX+37XMDJkrY7jqzFHvgw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019074726.0b0c1328@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:59:54 -0700 To: Wendy Seltzer From: SM In-Reply-To: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 15:20:17 -0000 Hi Wendy, At 05:43 19-10-2012, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >The second one (or a variant third) I heard was a field/flag for whether >data had been validated. There's (contested) discussion in ICANN >contract negotiations about requiring data validation or verification >for domain name registration, so it might be desirable to indicate on a >per-record or per-field basis whether data had been validated or >identity verified. This might be an optional field. If it is optional, the choice is between saying nothing about it or setting a requirement (re quoted text). Your guess is as good as mine as to whether anyone will object to the latter. Regards, -sm From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Fri Oct 19 08:36:27 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 CD6DA21F8745 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.858 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.741, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id co0I4mPmUGmL for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 4199221F8744 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=paypalcorp; 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:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=p0DFfZXkj80Z6rAKMlLx4W2VaRfF8xhuTmsPjVeCKl5bl7+EABadjycC 73mayh2E1asnLLjyM++0O5InK2qFN+FkCKvkfmvfplssCmYTjpEql4f43 7WKvwRxCB54wjhT7MZbBtRA1vJjcEFeoWsS//uEJyPD+bq4oA3DwlF612 Y=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=paypalcorp; t=1350660987; x=1382196987; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=u35Z4KjdqgAyVEMpW2RliJ9Gqvsu5mGoC7NH3fgHop8=; b=hajWQxQsPTYf2zYF4DFo02daac/lGAVkIMpop95LqTfQIXvwT6IlIVh2 U8kDRzNHSstaxyzYtkxdGFQaYIpqD8f/TphII6XMUPBT18npZ3adKEJlM UzvK0cqXUAKTgvmI6Rpx57gakRlikfvdlsaui2Yu6RdvXaUEJljMZeSd5 Q=; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,613,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="10384222" 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; 19 Oct 2012 08:36:19 -0700 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::40c1:9cf7:d21e:46c]) by DEN-EXMHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::55d3:9d86:3fc8:dbf4%14]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:36:06 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Andrew Sullivan Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrc+FWXfEiPbrGUyrd9nv9h/AlZfA95OAgAALOYCAABIbgIAABfQAgAABTAD//6chQQ== Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:36:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net>, <20121019145408.GC22660@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20121019145408.GC22660@mx1.yitter.info> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 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] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 15:36:27 -0000 An extensible value for validated might be useful rather than a simple yes = no. On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:55 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wro= te: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:49:32PM -0200, Arturo Servin wrote: >>=20 >> Perhaps a new field in the objects on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response= , i.e >>=20 >> { >> "handle" : "XXXX", >> "names": [ "Joe Bob, Inc.", "Bobby Joe Shopping" ], >> ... >> "validated": [yes], >>=20 >> } >=20 > I'd say valdidated-date or something. The presence of the field > indicates validation, and the date tells you when. It's no use to > know that data was validated at some point in the past, if you can't > tell when it happened. (Having validated my address when I registered > some names would tell you nothing about whether it's right today.) >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From aservin@lacnic.net Fri Oct 19 08:50:01 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 5D9B121F8751 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:50:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y59PqrXkrjLZ for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B931D21F87A2 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:f53e:fa07:7542:77fd]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDFC308478 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:50:00 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <508176A3.2090608@lacnic.net> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:49:55 -0200 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net>, <20121019145408.GC22660@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 15:50:02 -0000 Fair enough. A date seems to be the most appropriate. Regards, as On 19/10/2012 13:36, Smith, Bill wrote: > An extensible value for validated might be useful rather than a simple yes no. > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:55 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:49:32PM -0200, Arturo Servin wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps a new field in the objects on draft-ietf-weirds-json-response, i.e >>> >>> { >>> "handle" : "XXXX", >>> "names": [ "Joe Bob, Inc.", "Bobby Joe Shopping" ], >>> ... >>> "validated": [yes], >>> >>> } >> >> I'd say valdidated-date or something. The presence of the field >> indicates validation, and the date tells you when. It's no use to >> know that data was validated at some point in the past, if you can't >> tell when it happened. (Having validated my address when I registered >> some names would tell you nothing about whether it's right today.) >> >> A >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 edainow@afilias.info Fri Oct 19 09:13:28 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 1BAED21F878F for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-jqhlHEAgbn for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [66.199.183.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1795721F89E9 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([10.109.8.9] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TPFCQ-0001U7-4V for weirds@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:13:26 +0000 Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com ([209.85.219.70]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TPFCQ-00014d-3v for weirds@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:13:26 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id k14so2039619oag.1 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=XDgH5kas8Qpnn8XRGF30Nm0LDsC8ow6QmXz3+XbGt4g=; b=VbvRn4psa0widsMlpYK680cGqOcjWGG2gk0EiUS5vDd9TKkJ9qFYKNWCYmY2OULtov 8gG39AdNUzx9c4qNZN+JwUvljimtKF2sUxvWg+dQ1J0DmLUmxPswoR4F+CZEqXXAmjdb 7tTazGawtvV8QxoLRpOS/W8vziclxVW8bP6pi9rp/z+0oT3cBcTumsxYDKVH25IKHEaq uXFRBi2lhyH2hHGh7t4x0aHH6l7HXsSyL65HZ6n1ABxDOH2tkDgvJMSp6M86xYdsQUtF XGcgak6LfjlZO2zzM8gU6pSdPSrkcu5Qga0cnHeA5XHLC4jjobXaanbuSKbLK/bE1p04 zyZQ== Received: by 10.50.51.225 with SMTP id n1mr1983323igo.7.1350663200278; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.51.225 with SMTP id n1mr1983307igo.7.1350663200155; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.68.31] (tor-gateway.afilias.info. [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id az6sm16081523igb.11.2012.10.19.09.13.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50817C1C.808@afilias.info> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:13:16 -0400 From: Ernie Dainow User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121005 Thunderbird/16.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050305000807050403010605" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnJ8i/5ygSXhDEotgGKTjg57y1vFJvtPqxHxBEzrZYYbpSRAF6mqBFwyIUxAPa/AZe3k9dEPhaBjRvyPqgjnoN8TEOtnpAdvw9clmWxLym5dcSYPKWrJf9gX2yuWtRoJQdzTBLR Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 16:13:28 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050305000807050403010605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems to me that there are emerging requirements for both of these, in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm These are important requirements. Protocol design should really include these now, not as future extensions. The following is extracted from https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement Verification It is our current understanding that law enforcement representatives are willing to accept post-resolution verification of registrant Whois data, with a requirement to suspend the registration if verification is not successful within a specified time period. However, law enforcement recommends that if registrant Whois data is verified after the domain name resolves (as opposed to before), two points of data (a phone number and an email address) should be verified. Data Retention Law enforcement representatives appear to be willing to accept a dual-tiered retention schedule, requiring some elements such as transaction data to be retained for a minimum of six months (not six months after the expiration of the domain name), while other kinds of data would be kept for two years past the life of the registration. -Ernie On 10/18/2012 10:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Mentioned by Steve Metalitz (a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency) at the mic during yesterday's WHOIS update: > > 1. Add support for WhoWas [1] services. > > 2. Add info to responses to indicate when data elements have been validated by a registry. > > Murray (in the role of WG chair panelist) made the point that our goal is to allow for protocol extensions to provide services like these. #2 implies that there's a requirement for registry operators to implement a data validation process, and as far as I know that doesn't currently exist. > > Scott > > [1] https://www.arin.net/resources/whowas/index.html > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --------------050305000807050403010605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems to me that there are emerging requirements for both of these, in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm

These are important requirements. Protocol design should really include these now, not as future extensions.

The following is extracted from https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement

Verification
It is our current understanding that law enforcement representatives are willing to accept post-resolution verification of registrant Whois data, with a requirement to suspend the registration if verification is not successful within a specified time period.  However, law enforcement recommends that if registrant Whois data is verified after the domain name resolves (as opposed to before), two points of data (a phone number and an email address) should be verified.

Data Retention
Law enforcement representatives appear to be willing to accept a dual-tiered retention schedule, requiring some elements such as transaction data to be retained for a minimum of six months (not six months after the expiration of the domain name), while other kinds of data would be kept for two years past the life of the registration.

-Ernie


On 10/18/2012 10:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Mentioned by Steve Metalitz (a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency) at the mic during yesterday's WHOIS update:

1. Add support for WhoWas [1] services.

2. Add info to responses to indicate when data elements have been validated by a registry.

Murray (in the role of WG chair panelist) made the point that our goal is to allow for protocol extensions to provide services like these. #2 implies that there's a requirement for registry operators to implement a data validation process, and as far as I know that doesn't currently exist.

Scott

[1] https://www.arin.net/resources/whowas/index.html
_______________________________________________
weirds mailing list
weirds@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

--------------050305000807050403010605-- From bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Fri Oct 19 09:32:35 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 3124C21F87CE for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.494, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0l-n2ahlfHl5 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 7288C21F8A2F for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=paypalcorp; 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:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=VKIBKVLsB0C5jUcTJjvRe0T0WF6D4qng+d7zsuBw+xUvJu+qpKSe2BcR zQQKlvSPkzI8Yno6v/tdscQMjPRJxZ0pkTGLZ8tyKHRmGvwybeJ96ZYdA 8QG2SmsfKxBXVqsVGBSzgvS2M15/x+G3YvPVnC4r3W+cF7/cG23eHlFtk c=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=paypalcorp; t=1350664354; x=1382200354; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hzTVm49vw6UBLffA4e/1IZs3qpkeHxQZetXrePNqAyY=; b=Nwb4K1+5+GcYmFYD69YFy6PtG0jrTrqieVSXffSCT0qfSkc2QDP5LoZC t1u9KK0rnQ/YE29Qjk2zqFJ58sY7GnDzlDSLyYix5R3VLW6d8lkg+okdL dPe5KIbpGxJDTemhWJpHObZVloXSlw/u3Wg84ccv2DyuWDmES/vJ7g3VN s=; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,613,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="10385667" Received: from den-vtenf-002.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-006.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.213]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2012 09:32:32 -0700 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::40c1:9cf7:d21e:46c]) by DEN-EXMHT-006.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::5c45:283f:1e47:5cdf%17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:32:32 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: Arturo Servin Thread-Topic: [weirds] ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrc+FWXfEiPbrGUyrd9nv9h/AlZfA95OAgAALOYCAABIbgIAABfQAgAABTAD//6chQYAAaHKA//+nUwI= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:32:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net>, <20121019145408.GC22660@mx1.yitter.info> , <508176A3.2090608@lacnic.net> In-Reply-To: <508176A3.2090608@lacnic.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 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] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 16:32:35 -0000 Actually I was suggesting something far more extensible. I am not suggesting that we define the extensions, only that we provide the= mechanisms for others to do so. We should not prescribe the information re= quired for those mechanisms, but rather the means to provide that informati= on in a form that can be consumed/used by others. Date might be one of the (simple) mechanisms offered, and other forms would= be left for future development by others. On Oct 19, 2012, at 8:50 AM, "Arturo Servin" wrote: >=20 > Fair enough. A date seems to be the most appropriate. >=20 > Regards, > as From sm@resistor.net Fri Oct 19 09:52:02 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 209B421F8D03 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nBoOPd8YT3Js for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B11E21F8C6C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9JGpVOL024027; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:51:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350665496; bh=eDufU3m+g/tHn/0RHxWS/wSFWxXi+fQ1NDD2rL8dORE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=LVJH1Bm1amWi1EbAXDgrxU3SpdjNaQzt0OOfP3jdEb2+ABb/45shyOmnoKV6aXOhL 2nlTB8ypFsbrCSzXOmgDyIlVaMIYsmf3AgU8UfKdZtGu8jX26ydHs6k341lAEsd9TV h3z6kpBl5BzvanbYV1Zq9nTy+9qp7PU4WMu6kpBU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350665496; i=@resistor.net; bh=eDufU3m+g/tHn/0RHxWS/wSFWxXi+fQ1NDD2rL8dORE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jJ2qeHxUknDTnkp8aBZzGAcGqiJ1vQpr0AsEmAMWDSKKSvxYx1YP/gG1BFNm40SBu 8rBkr41Xp74IIZR1aOOuAHm3K5bNnYpbwnaHyd81qMU73EWWmdyiqWxi1Yp25QbPav a7uMHdg63JSciMkaGm6yw3M3T8DfYG609Crd+PE4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019091750.09c9a7c0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:34:29 -0700 To: Ernie Dainow From: SM In-Reply-To: <50817C1C.808@afilias.info> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <50817C1C.808@afilias.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 16:52:02 -0000 Hi Ernie, At 09:13 19-10-2012, Ernie Dainow wrote: >These are important requirements. Protocol design should really >include these now, not as future extensions. [snip] >Data Retention >Law enforcement representatives appear to be willing to accept a >dual-tiered retention schedule, requiring some elements such as >transaction data to be retained for a minimum of six months (not six >months after the expiration of the domain name), while other kinds >of data would be kept for two years past the life of the registration. There isn't any mention of data retention in the charter. It seems to me that the WG will end up trying to solve "the Whois problem" if it tackles all the requirements being thrown in its path. Regards, -sm From michele@blacknight.ie Fri Oct 19 09:54:21 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 774C721F8D86 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:54:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.304 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_FROM_NONAME=1.294] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEuPq7NS0b4m for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFB521F8D85 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BKEXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::76:af74:8c72:96ac]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:54:20 +0100 From: "\"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight\"" To: Ernie Dainow Thread-Topic: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 Thread-Index: AQHNrhS46uRQpcffdUOEw+ebPTS52JfA2Jq7 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:54:15 +0000 Message-ID: <45864011-FB12-4053-9740-5A31CAE30050@blacknight.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, <20121019161320.799885A400F@merlin.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20121019161320.799885A400F@merlin.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_45864011FB12405397405A31CAE30050blacknightcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 16:54:21 -0000 --_000_45864011FB12405397405A31CAE30050blacknightcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The RAA is still being negotiated so the actual requirements for registrars= have not been finalised Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 19 Oct 2012, at 12:13, "Ernie Dainow" > wrote: Seems to me that there are emerging requirements for both of these, in the = Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announ= cements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm These are important requirements. Protocol design should really include the= se now, not as future extensions. The following is extracted from https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Neg= otiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation= +Agreement Verification It is our current understanding that law enforcement representatives are wi= lling to accept post-resolution verification of registrant Whois data, with= a requirement to suspend the registration if verification is not successfu= l within a specified time period. However, law enforcement recommends that= if registrant Whois data is verified after the domain name resolves (as op= posed to before), two points of data (a phone number and an email address) = should be verified. Data Retention Law enforcement representatives appear to be willing to accept a dual-tiere= d retention schedule, requiring some elements such as transaction data to b= e retained for a minimum of six months (not six months after the expiration= of the domain name), while other kinds of data would be kept for two years= past the life of the registration. -Ernie On 10/18/2012 10:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: Mentioned by Steve Metalitz (a member of the Intellectual Property Constitu= ency) at the mic during yesterday's WHOIS update: 1. Add support for WhoWas [1] services. 2. Add info to responses to indicate when data elements have been validated= by a registry. Murray (in the role of WG chair panelist) made the point that our goal is t= o allow for protocol extensions to provide services like these. #2 implies = that there's a requirement for registry operators to implement a data valid= ation process, and as far as I know that doesn't currently exist. Scott [1] https://www.arin.net/resources/whowas/index.html _______________________________________________ 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 --_000_45864011FB12405397405A31CAE30050blacknightcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The RAA is still being negotiated so the actual requirements for regis= trars have not been finalised

Regards

Michele

Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 19 Oct 2012, at 12:13, "Ernie Dainow" <edainow@afilias.info> wrote:

Seems to me that there are emerging requirements for both of these, in= the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-= 24sep12-en.htm

These are important requirements. Protocol design should really include the= se now, not as future extensions.

The following is extracted from https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN&= #43;and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accredita= tion+Agreement

Verification
It is our current understanding that law enforcement representatives are wi= lling to accept post-resolution verification of registrant Whois data, with= a requirement to suspend the registration if verification is not successfu= l within a specified time period.  However, law enforcement recommends that if registrant Whois data is verif= ied after the domain name resolves (as opposed to before), two points of da= ta (a phone number and an email address) should be verified.

Data Retention
Law enforcement representatives appear to be willing to accept a dual-tiere= d retention schedule, requiring some elements such as transaction data to b= e retained for a minimum of six months (not six months after the expiration= of the domain name), while other kinds of data would be kept for two years past the life of the registratio= n.

-Ernie


On 10/18/2012 10:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wr= ote:
Mentioned by Steve Metalitz (a member of the Intellectual Pr=
operty Constituency) at the mic during yesterday's WHOIS update:

1. Add support for WhoWas [1] services.

2. Add info to responses to indicate when data elements have been validated=
 by a registry.

Murray (in the role of WG chair panelist) made the point that our goal is t=
o allow for protocol extensions to provide services like these. #2 implies =
that there's a requirement for registry operators to implement a data valid=
ation process, and as far as I know that doesn't currently exist.

Scott

[1] https://www.arin.net/resources/whowas/index.html
_______________________________________________
weirds mailing list
weird=
s@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds

_______________________________________________
weirds mailing list
weirds@ietf.org
https://www.= ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
--_000_45864011FB12405397405A31CAE30050blacknightcom_-- From johnl@iecc.com Fri Oct 19 16:16:01 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 BBB2921F884E for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.688 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.511, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlruYpFepqV7 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:16:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 5DBB221F884B for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2230 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2012 23:15:53 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 19 Oct 2012 23:15:53 -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=5081df29.xn--i8sz2z.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=pvk2t9GuuyUUATg9L8IMCy43ekm9lxCY7h+OGGFECOs=; b=sKjZz+rLWaxF2rqZ75BTrxEo/Id1VoQ+iW6KLv9B/TdDwcL0STO49c5m068lLPvkjzlB08UmbE13oXgCBSPC2JVlDvwexleVPsbHLY9LTa+dsb5McdAyPatd6fduYWOFyTWGcR/f8+BTQH6VzECOmQ91vKGQe1f+U6/jKT/NhBs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=5081df29.xn--i8sz2z.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=pvk2t9GuuyUUATg9L8IMCy43ekm9lxCY7h+OGGFECOs=; b=deHyFWBetd4DBy8gOR6r4I0SMTo3bZeN5rHBh49k0TMycvFhfq5O6HIqhWdRgVfzUsuqJW5mqpTy4bY+YxcT6CWZm/q8kZ46x2OdGZ/G1PFsB62wLlc0g78I2I/XEbde/AlrIB6/vbT/t8PPa21yIXPIuB0Op6LemfzHh+eNYoY= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 19 Oct 2012 23:15:31 -0000 Message-ID: <20121019231531.29307.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] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 23:16:01 -0000 In article you write: >Actually I was suggesting something far more extensible. It seems to me vanishingly unlikely that we will ever get registries and registrars to give us more than a validation date. But if you think something more complex would be useful, how about writing up some examples and use cases? R's, John From superuser@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 16:57:40 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 500F121F885B for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wkcze4MOs5pT for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7674221F8858 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so709309lam.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bSo7XUcmFxnFPj05S6rLqu7S5hQK+Oi4qHnbGAPNaNE=; b=G0iksQF37g8hGEgkeYvMAZ4y9XMAjU6vcq+SvHaqBRi5Q3YV/XXiE6Uc7mfIVkb0vG 5bfNpWXAuCKQMLTkFw3ySP/X/RJOBm8a/i/sbPYQ6o6R++X5282p189eUqCkZY9WAqC5 HTcYLdjVRgwJ8WJ1PrpoBWgUDfAu7QiusquHlMQIbKqkascox22ELMUem/77BZ2z828g KcSbZVp4gqe/GrRghv8Lmbn8pzOw5b0JFPy7+8BNvfSbBAtpsBqr5bRkizPttZ2Zgnqw Z7tdT+uEL4C9J2lt3/jmso2VACMy6aVRVXurGnUEwa1KWEAE8oCm4eHFDhetGoD9dVT9 jZZg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.99.74 with SMTP id eo10mr1153078lbb.64.1350691058512; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019010429.0ace8518@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019010429.0ace8518@resistor.net> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: SM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 23:57:40 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:01 AM, SM wrote: > The RFP for the above was issued in May 2012. It's not like this is some > new initiative. It would be highly unusual for an IETF working group to > commit to support the above. Why do you say that? I've been part of several working groups where implementations are done by participants, and the development of the specification was influenced by the evolution of the implementations and vice versa. That's the kind of thing I have in mind. >> 7) ICANN has commissioned some deep statistical studies about who's > > That may be related to the survey where it is explained that "for the > non-technical think about DOS commands before Windows became available". > That does not sound like deep statistical studies to me. That wasn't the nature of the study. When the preliminary version gets published (very soon, they said), I'll post a link to it here. -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 16:59:25 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 18D0821F8558 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JSvrXTBN7yFN for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B27121F8B37 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so761276lbo.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VAKv4UWTxwTCb/FQrwiEJ3nsxWvoEn6mINErh/IL51k=; b=fz/GaepQzZiyom2k/g2aKszKTSGwu2kKj3VGvS/fREAc4rWy+DMgh2aI1XWWBwON8V NdX4qPScPZrNXJBe3oFRsks/z06/wXFlx5lRvT/P/GhKRHhnDFFVinHeXMjJo3mBfX5L h1pgn/xlZVEXb8QiRlDlkGgTqgXaocbNcp5JAXGoyF/EHHER5IXF/ly7WcCXofzbJwyr UAU+5oTBsMdOiNJmoks6jQDc/+aEAIJR7a1fmr7E5xs9V8MqFe4rsPsiFueb2EBMnR96 nHtaj1N05UGbbtNa369cn3VZCP6fTmBH5UkgJxzJvWXsSpsQfHhkgxfaUJ1NiqgU8hFK isqw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.46.7 with SMTP id r7mr1155246lbm.73.1350691162820; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:59:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Andy Newton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 19 Oct 2012 23:59:25 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Andy Newton wrote: >>The two I recall in particular were support for WHOWAS (queryable >>historical data about domain registrations) > > We have a WHOWAS service. It is a much different critter than Whois. > Asking for a WHOWAS service is much more than putting a REST interface > atop a Whois server. While such thing is interesting and I don't want to > speak against the desire, the effort can be an order of magnitude greater > than RDAP as it is currently specified. I think this is out of scope. I tend to agree, though if by accident we happen to come up with something easily extended to a WHOWAS sort of thing, that would be dandy. -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 17:00:46 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 61A5021F885D for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZlXAUCEz7GRa for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD1221F87CD for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so761700lbo.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DJ89xCmhg8Us8y3JKpjPNF4BfEGc/IMPRQuBiuE0rZM=; b=R1skOPk1GHFVH7x29E9iKXYlGc1sZYC+fznRU9ZFgwIIvJ4SU5reKJnnE/XRGndETK 34iP8/4WEw7s/x2QmxWDpSxUu03LcNQOZ+zl60cCrDbWjjM5kjqh9aAzyPgAakm/NAYf nN+jp6J5i9Bj/Z1gMDFlBL62sWQ/1/bbHjA2labEFgnB03I9WT9L8k8KUQKNpx7iI84J C2qDvVO3DXD78ThyuVmfV8Ip+VjlijuDT78lzIwvN1p2+8+uTUPkaD3qE00jWL7uGoiC DUmIITGGepgp9L6HlGex7WkJlEh1ZFcb685dCfMEQdpm6pHtUszCxvXfDrtuqVFDnnIH LHlw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.104.77 with SMTP id gc13mr2366422lab.16.1350691244557; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Oct 2012 00:00:46 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > How does one "validate" a domain name, name server, or IP address, or is this really about contact information? I had the same question at first but it looks like that's been clarified here. I suggest that in our reply definition we include a very precise explanation of what "validate" means in this context. -MSK From johnl@iecc.com Sat Oct 20 03:07:37 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 0DE2D21F85B3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:07:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.697 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.502, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUkMXMyw8l6i for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:07:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 BE59B21F85A7 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14295 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2012 10:07:31 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Oct 2012 10:07:31 -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=508277e3.xn--3zv.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=sYn7vF0Pgf9hK3tmD3MkwYnYcLXHwHg5PIXkuCtd6mk=; b=uPuAkF7iN9YO55K5tfM5mI71xL8iSDCJmoJ4mUg5vgw/MLVREtpkLwduXwFLtsgKTjwT6vqfnGucc3x4KYqSse62fU4hwwVkOSmAQ/G7yqj2eWdanP9M2Sru/GQ94YNGpobhmN2AEFE5NTKWW9xZRAXYlc90UXAlhqYSNhmcJuU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=508277e3.xn--3zv.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=sYn7vF0Pgf9hK3tmD3MkwYnYcLXHwHg5PIXkuCtd6mk=; b=RGq2xANWMPHwKwYOQTRW78HhVvwjXvvVaaPBjHHfwN9/3b+JxSTm4Bl4ZC4xjIzLoRi/9JjnF0CRw6bNcy9LEmP9KTxPTwCT0U6Hzj+Q97KVdKty1lb/elbgcne9PcYHOWTtJpDpT/uX0X+4YBGiXUzA11Kfs36dMFzLFOiA0Y0= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 20 Oct 2012 10:07:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20121020100708.3271.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] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Oct 2012 10:07:37 -0000 >> The RFP for the above was issued in May 2012. It's not like this is some >> new initiative. It would be highly unusual for an IETF working group to >> commit to support the above. > >Why do you say that? I've been part of several working groups where >implementations are done by participants, and the development of the >specification was influenced by the evolution of the implementations >and vice versa. That's the kind of thing I have in mind. The RFP said that the contractor would follow WEIRDS and implement whatever we come up with. I know that more than one of the groups that submitted proposals are active here, so it would certainly be nice to get feedback about implmentation issues, but I don't see that we need to do anything special about it. If implementers, ICANN or otherwise, run into snags, they (we?) can just say something. By the way, has anyone heard whether ICANN picked a contractor and if so who it is? The bids closed months ago. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Sat Oct 20 03:16:24 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 1B59A21F855B for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:16:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.494, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2S5BfWgCEkU for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:16:23 -0700 (PDT) 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 2381A21F84FE for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16110 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2012 10:16:21 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Oct 2012 10:16:21 -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=508279f4.xn--hew.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=88w4YEKoDBwIVONSkkhCewHYcum1djbdocx+A7qZMLc=; b=LsUkvNZmFbHb1hFSYOJE+wvJwcHVO3dltqPu1FQ1tTmbop8JgUEtC9jM92hUm+S0v+AhAZxQV50Qi8/ilUbYOw4K5W7jrUN0Zu2zRlw9hfoERvaAFoct0CS0A0jO/pTaKjqEWJ1tIecJtA6OatMjLEM1/rjDnf56IvfP1ts7j/E= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=508279f4.xn--hew.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=88w4YEKoDBwIVONSkkhCewHYcum1djbdocx+A7qZMLc=; b=bNC5HRIG+uyMrYQJm3O9gDleagGQyZYtB1fUckINFGokRsSlSk4dd5z64HoXYTQhZ4rqnufWCq0cv9o6tfhaDW10DORbIDlU/ermx2opQ1sWF6lDzejqnJ0M/xqzXeBz1nc6F+vYUZ9Ul3YisrF5C5HdxBu+V/19Ub9lv77fVVo= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 20 Oct 2012 10:15:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20121020101558.3621.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] validate, was ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Oct 2012 10:16:24 -0000 >> How does one "validate" a domain name, name server, or IP address, or >is this really about contact information? > >I had the same question at first but it looks like that's been >clarified here. I suggest that in our reply definition we include a >very precise explanation of what "validate" means in this context. The problem is that it can mean a very wide variety of things: * Check that an IP is routed, that an appropriate server answers, and/or that an appropriate server has the right DNS records for a delegated domain. * Check that an alleged phone number is syntactically valid, e.g., has the right number of digits and that that prefix digits are in use. * Call the phone number and see who answers, either mechanically by having a robot read off a code that the registrant types into a web page, or by humans talking to whoever answers. * Check that an alleged email address is syntactically valid and has appropriate DNS records, will accept a message, accepts a message and doesn't bounce, and/or that someone clicks a URL in the message. * Check that a postal address is valid, in countries where it's possible to do that. * Mail something to the postal address with a verification code to enter. etc. etc. I know people who do all these things for various sorts of signup verifications. And there are doubtless more that I haven't seen. We could try and come up with a set of categories, i.e., syntax valid, semantics valid, contact verified, but it sounds to me like an area where we don't know what we're doing. So unless someone offers an actual implementation of something more than a validation date, I'd rather not guess. -- 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 bill.smith@paypal-inc.com Sat Oct 20 11:44:39 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 EFFBA21F8C55 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DYCpv3E0-7y for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 74CE321F8BA9 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:44:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=paypalcorp; 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:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=Q4qyDJTqhawI611Xo+uijDxnVrDbwXPeYDUNYnRoA6XYxnLl8npvdHJl hDYQCT4EDkWXd3i0pT2wPRdi5Ea6AyVShSaQNYy0L1VQBgAQA31OdgsJV l+5P6KBnrCfXsbbnE9wovay1djddSIB3RkSEvPQeTvNe5lDFncQuxxUEu Q=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=paypalcorp; t=1350758677; x=1382294677; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xzLQDqq8NGtJ90Rcg8EPsc9fRj5hxScwZQIuXkNgbo8=; b=UKoW9jeubI79Nn06HckFv1DzwUObhHerlG8GhOUukrbl2UmwlnjC7V01 7LI1weDG2EyWS4J0KDnnu7uUgNqNsGDuXibJhKpbasj4s0CMv0g02kTmi 7Kl1s9mz3fal4gbSRjdM6iZea13NpleYHN0VBa0s5L3AjdrJPFpfTdkNJ Y=; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,622,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="10889869" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-EXMHT-004.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2012 11:44:28 -0700 Received: from DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::40c1:9cf7:d21e:46c]) by DEN-EXMHT-004.corp.ebay.com ([fe80::a487:c570:9abc:bb59%14]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:44:28 -0600 From: "Smith, Bill" To: John Levine Thread-Topic: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrqwBIRa5rK39vUSMmK/ykwizlJfCiIU+ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:44:27 +0000 Message-ID: <49830A7A-CC2B-48D6-97F7-F731020CB162@paypal.com> References: , <20121020101558.3621.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121020101558.3621.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 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] validate, was ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Oct 2012 18:44:39 -0000 Sent from my iPhone On Oct 20, 2012, at 3:16 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >=20 > We could try and come up with a set of categories, i.e., syntax valid, > semantics valid, contact verified, but it sounds to me like an area > where we don't know what we're doing. So unless someone offers an > actual implementation of something more than a validation date, I'd > rather not guess. Which is why an extensible mechanism is preferable. An example would be TLS= and its ability to support new key and encryption methods. A small set of defined categories, perhaps one, would be defined along with= a mechanism to add others allowing others to extend our work as needs aris= e. Seems like a desirable, and easy-to-implement feature given TLS and othe= r examples.= From sm@resistor.net Sat Oct 20 12:30:59 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 C169321F890E for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:30:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yV0malJsCs8f for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B9D21F8900 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9KJUoYW014140; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:30:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350761454; bh=wXSQvovy5Rt0K5r6K1nvcD2DNIxB3+WmD2TfpN4kO+Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=zNAOE7DqNDECyhw4KgqTOVjRnmsQnae5FLDyrGPSFwbo8GlqTfV+jrEq6+VoZudEl 7gX+N34amipNGNp+YgArN02NIIdgsFEiVhboUcU7q6gO8/EUSFzpKYjtBk1YR4T4sI eSpXuaIxvyUXwPuY/xUDK7KA4saxir+dLl1GMvyI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350761454; i=@resistor.net; bh=wXSQvovy5Rt0K5r6K1nvcD2DNIxB3+WmD2TfpN4kO+Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Cihs3q0A+n8Gl+UWiDQnwVYWHpfnLBzhgBZQ8+QJUZVsXFa5WncyeLLnLj8vWFaGh TBtBGcVoWv0yO+dE07IEizWY8dEXI1VOPeRM0l6eGb7fu5m4+k87+1aWJS0pWinoTa ZELkt9BCGToKRQuHON0Nxooh0kl8sOT3riYfmiZU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121020095920.0aa7a730@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:19:55 -0700 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019010429.0ace8518@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Oct 2012 19:30:59 -0000 Hi Murray, At 16:57 19-10-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >Why do you say that? I've been part of several working groups where >implementations are done by participants, and the development of the >specification was influenced by the evolution of the implementations >and vice versa. That's the kind of thing I have in mind. I'm ok with the above. John Levine said it better than I could. Regards, -sm From johnl@taugh.com Sat Oct 20 13:47:07 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 A612D21F8917 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KKSHwANyNwde for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 B78B521F8918 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 40174 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2012 20:47:05 -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=9ced.50830dc9.k1210; bh=ekagfh4WmOwHrHfeeuwRZOi5tmM7KIrUeYwgMXDqluU=; b=pvc8ybQVp4/6KaCVwMD3irdKw+a62Z3x+kYpX1hd5NUNlDZaMu2CQ8JfJQ8XrLWyKJcmQpdPNNsBs4DlKgFJYZjCmd+p8de6Bv6Jmy+6VDi6YHv55I5bS9rzXAW9NuBB0BfaHzdrdrQNmtdi8fjCI+FxpAZBLrjgNyk0jUFYcrs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=9ced.50830dc9.k1210; bh=ekagfh4WmOwHrHfeeuwRZOi5tmM7KIrUeYwgMXDqluU=; b=h+IQ6h1/iddxM7ju/i8qIsFVM10wKUhKG/UiEhQcqnPAshWDfn5iKQUNndJa3Zpv/d459ADrJ4yjrdROIwBZD7K2d6pHOOnmjv6zY+l0ItOjmyOZCsAWtM58EGhAuiHm5ugszx4WCO+EM5oTuPuEzIaXOXYbRsZfdOWxVQVVLJI= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 20 Oct 2012 20:46:43 -0000 Date: 20 Oct 2012 21:47:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Smith, Bill" In-Reply-To: <49830A7A-CC2B-48D6-97F7-F731020CB162@paypal.com> References: , <20121020101558.3621.qmail@joyce.lan> <49830A7A-CC2B-48D6-97F7-F731020CB162@paypal.com> 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: John Levine , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Oct 2012 20:47:07 -0000 >> We could try and come up with a set of categories, i.e., syntax valid, >> semantics valid, contact verified, but it sounds to me like an area >> where we don't know what we're doing. So unless someone offers an >> actual implementation of something more than a validation date, I'd >> rather not guess. > > Which is why an extensible mechanism is preferable. An example would be > TLS and its ability to support new key and encryption methods. > > A small set of defined categories, perhaps one, would be defined along > with a mechanism to add others allowing others to extend our work as > needs arise. Seems like a desirable, and easy-to-implement feature given > TLS and other examples. Are the extensions per-data type? Per field? Global? Can there be more than one verification field per data field? Do all fields of the same time in a record need consistent verification info? Since you seem to have a clearer idea of how this would work, write it up. Then the people who will be publishing the data can see what you have in mind and they can say whether there's any likelihood that someone will implement 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 superuser@gmail.com Sat Oct 20 21:12:17 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 0DEB721F842B for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tnzXPqWiih8J for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5899821F83EF for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n5so1890861oag.31 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pEZ0d+pHv7z4S+aGY7jEZGqx5qx7N+KWdo07xr/RAQY=; b=eGQ3v9drtOYYOwOal3GBKqXvGx/f7G5o493GC+hjjnOJLP1ke7IfEwk2audcZzcT7U OVcBrE4/la+1aMYRPesdpeZiqnqreZQMHa7Jm8DyTIm+PTklPhMdcGrWVI2+IPc6wlSb 9TpOz5K5Cpvcbx4RTd7uc9bEkI1eqM4qsnNBIZHvB9x8UKeKp8DZTDInZ9VkHc8xx7NS U0wtK1gT5VUa8XZ6WG7s5OzBtvsIFwFntaVEGdRYo8+F+w4eYQugkn7IEtf6O+CML0xp j+cJGwYE8+VKbdJANThjWWbQcZsbd/oJfAHwPYaIEA3SmMP66vwc41qPTW1kruhkJkTR FqLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.169.48 with SMTP id ab16mr5277421oec.15.1350792735963; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2FE64D12-55AE-4C8A-8AFE-AC22E779073D@apnic.net> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:12:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Andy Newton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 04:12:17 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Andy Newton wrote: >>Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? > > Can you explain this further? I take this to mean something like an indication that "Your client is configured for French, but the reply appears to be in Farsi," for example. >> Auto-translate? > > This seems to be the number 1 use case I have found while searching the > interwebs. I would say that automatic language translation of social data > is next to useless and sometimes harmful, and doing so with technical data > is inappropriate. Is this still true if the client indicates to the viewer that such translation happened? Or only do so when explicitly requested to do so? -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Sat Oct 20 21:13:34 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 A0F1A21F842B for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KAwL+QYjEVu5 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA0521F83EF for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n5so1891376oag.31 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GGO8iSb2ScTl/CLjnP635BM2x8aVK8DvH/NSLJJjdq8=; b=d+dIsDidbyj17udsvUwfQLU5fYFznihlZJKKobaU/peH2t4pMiLe40uZ2LQ4KL2bK9 CuV6wAMuiWrnBEmUohDOyNmNcrF8qLRN8HBwj67AduyI8wtcZeWMeGfodtPTKe8SPbPH tb+8eX4WrOH8WntcG2Ivxw15eatNQGkm6/RIyUY+MAMX8rpGZYROyY+7pqSLXNXY+Rqb j2h55A6y1F24qLcxUjfW1ct7cWykRTp4upbC8mk+k5rt+BrWVs6VhYckKZ1WVSNnCS7d gqsBQZrQQ32cceqJjZBi5IlEIDXcL7aO83l/AYq+p6FjyDDuiDv34O8Un3X2M6VVl8+S x9MA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.32.178 with SMTP id k18mr5268863oei.8.1350792813854; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6959A1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6959A1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:13:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Data Integrity X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 04:13:34 -0000 On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Data integrity ("The property that data has not been changed, destroyed, = or lost in an unauthorized or accidental manner") is another security servi= ce for which I haven't been able to find specific protocol requirements. Th= ere's a lot of discussion of needs for data accuracy, but I don't think tha= t's a protocol issue. Are there any data integrity requirements? Could this be the same as, or related to, ICANN's vague "validation" requirement? -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Sat Oct 20 21:15:51 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 48C0021F8437 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxS0wemWjtBN for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A154821F89A5 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so1872570obq.31 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NwkNH4zs3et2l/xNjNVjQVnz5zfiuczQKK4eoGb2fnk=; b=YFiqQ2l/0hT4oLI0laYplSDct5n3CG5YkItURuh0uu1EKANFVri/UxziH8SoJPh19m RXipyGEHRkTJkQZQWKVRvlTuiKubfLeNXuFCYTKowquvtuswGOC7Jmikoxh9q02WYwc6 87QdH00/cRvCyGPj8+fnkUO3jFvtJe6MKhWsAur9SJWSoQckwqsZFfEhCtfzSTPYCHw0 JiDi7KHJrKN4+uNje8YqW5B9t4OkYd5GyYu3NHHRUcZvYrTE9AOxPSsM/EoSolWgM8q6 ejFQX/uUf7jhXV8kIZ7IE4EUgfkmKe5R1/wxRyf0GzMumsoROUbReY/nkQTeBBWfF7Ve 1W2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.69.36 with SMTP id b4mr3982053obu.96.1350792950216; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:15:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 04:15:51 -0000 On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > I haven't been able to find any requirements for non-repudiation services. In the interest of clarity it may help to repeat the definition of "non-repudiation service" from RFC 4949: > > "A security service that provide protection against false denial of involvement in an association (especially a communication association that transfers data)." > > Digital signatures are often used to provide this service. Does anyone know of any requirements for signed queries or signed responses? Not specifically. We get that property for free if the request has been secured by TLS (i.e., https), which seems the most likely solution to the anti-eavesdropping notion, but I've never heard a need for the capability to provide replies that are signed yet not encrypted. -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Sat Oct 20 21:31:30 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 1472021F88CF for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f5JuxgUA-4gs for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641D321F895D for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so1878508obq.31 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UdIQUCfokSoDq6f/pawU+glSllpSU2zTBUDZwPoyQ2Y=; b=mM2gz3UQycKXAUzOsscsB/sroOY0vndVIzKTTbGyAp4shdqcAhQMJfM3IrrBiW2vAT gTep+KG7BExfQY8gbg2isKa9w+Kd5mKKtFxPTTU+URYnT8Ie/R85Hmyvs10pXgUCw0pp g8dKWpNKDOI/mdQSs1NCYAGVv3rnGYjWkoaQL6jT2cUzJ1RuHehe2lk8OrHonNFp7ZNy CrMkgVUobRPRZho9pYU52u6hdJIdG+LX6hjx91OK9DDICqZXxYYcBqkKcADytzHR6JGO KH/eEjJ0PKbKco2kkweuuYWK3nDZuXuJ2QVNBUiSLuqAh+m9F27aqCQN0wsqTW80H61C jVFg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.26.232 with SMTP id o8mr5113009oeg.7.1350793889080; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121001111731.0b9d68e8@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120927143342.0a7102a8@elandnews.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68EED1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001080108.0a15caa8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F0D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001095749.0b589810@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F12C@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001103620.098e56f8@resistor.net> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D68F193@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121001111731.0b9d68e8@resistor.net> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: SM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 04:31:30 -0000 On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM, SM wrote: >> Optional? How so? Eventually it should be added to both the query and >> response documents as a normative reference. > > A normative reference to a security proposal does not make security > non-optional. The question is addressed through requirements. I don't see > any such requirements in the drafts at the moment. It's not a problem as > the drafts are -00. I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure there's only one way to resolve this. A complete protocol specification can span many documents, without automatically meaning that only the base document (assuming there is one) defines the protocol itself. MIME comes to mind, plus the now-seven-part HTTP 1.1 revision that's being developed in another working group. Moreover, even WHOIS is itself a complete protocol even though it is totally insecure; you could run it over port 443 if you want security, but it's functional without (with the caveat that there are no security provisions in it). SMTP is ubiquitous but also famously insecure; STARTTLS is defined in an extension document. I think it's fine to produce a document defining RDAP that includes no security provisions at all, so long as it says there are none, and also says something like "If you have any of the usual security requirements for your application of this, go read this other document which tells you how to do so." -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Sat Oct 20 21:35:43 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 8236121F8481 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5wy2iYNq87cJ for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B656021F8470 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so1880183obq.31 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cLKqh9kDF579/vnzjkXvMbcvggAWam3j1mwLb4matmE=; b=bJ1n7t0rTARQnJXbFQxijMjdmWZmOlf69jEF9lKGwEwhqq+Z3VZp+qhir9dIMvfzVa LHwwIIdPhmFWLb1NRHGB2DQYMEPXiFvJGHF+qcYlZUSaiOSH7krzGfIR4Fwp5/pdGY3v 8JA5hijprHlHf0kw9yaVr5aY4GERzmxVdfQuEF1AHU+4ysHSp6ErYhasTgFyQHdmJxjf CD/OveEHYXObtXt5055FC2tgjQHuDWumjz6YKieRXU9cEbarA5cBVk7zJwEG+Ihlq8ZA I+Br8HAuAKTWLArze9GNshqVwdqf99Dh3uOa5FWDIARkyYJG9K5T/UCYQ2dxc/qUeM8R E6kA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.169.48 with SMTP id ab16mr5304235oec.15.1350794141936; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692DC3@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692DC3@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:35:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authorization X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 04:35:43 -0000 On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > From "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Report": > > Implement an authorization framework that is capable of providing granular (per registration data object) permissions (access controls). > > From RFC 3707: > > 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. > > The protocol MUST provide an anonymous access mechanism that may be turned on or off based on the policy of an operator. > > Thoughts on these requirements? 3707 doesn't say much about authorization. It describes the requirements listed above in the context of access control. It seems to me that an RDAP server that includes non-mandatory HTTP authentication support solves all of these. If the client doesn't authenticate, it's anonymous, and the server can decide what (if anything) to return and what per-IP-address rate limit might be appropriate to enforce. If it does, then again the server can make specific decisions about what fields (if any) to return, and rate limiting can be done if needed regardless of the client's IP address; such privileged access is also easy to revoke down to the anonymous level if abused. -MSK From ghenry@suretec.co.uk Sun Oct 21 01:34:47 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 70F6D21F85F9 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ZijrAOW2Rln for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DAA21F85D5 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so1961663obq.31 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:34:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=L2r30aTb4TSJ+0xHpfsbLCzQmhCnXKVVUTl83NYFI1o=; b=dX+c8yqvv/rUP4/Bk7YKzdLoPG2xIKGUNZ/wNHNFxzBQMhPDd6TAlA/WpSrTLt/MrR znfKQ3qu2TXCngyYtWruMGGBbCgVBXQALj15H5ygIfat+FZSj0LvY2CYvvxJIFi08T2d 2R/LXZI4bIm6AgH/YOjx+Y6LafkedlEEnobxFR4MhbaRh8/IVpX5AXdzLn0jV7MadFe+ Ruu0WJYPKkuLh3Ka3gOiF9kpa2Yi3H72aNhMkIvkkMoHlsyo0LZzkfQ2i+atm5O70NyS WPkhEAxziESKOfL+9zwBjmgviqymH3pjUvC8w0j35Sao8OUHtw5PH6bkJvbfgi+vrsIg lOtQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.174.39 with SMTP id bp7mr4353458obc.1.1350808485995; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.168.137 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:34:45 +0100 Message-ID: From: Gavin Henry To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8e/VLTDCl5NH6moLBpnPefRd8lXQDWFaRpDW8Tvd2epj73mV6V5pFif+TSyEckTL1+UJV Subject: [weirds] Getting involved? (learned about this at UKNOF23) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 08:58:01 -0000 Hi all, Is it too late to get involved? I wrote our API (SureVoIP API - http://www.surevoip.co.uk/support/wiki/api_documentation) and would like to help and review where I can. Thanks, Gavin. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 824887 E ghenry@suretec.co.uk Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL. Subject to disclaimer at http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See http://www.surevoip.co.uk Did you see our API? http://www.surevoip.co.uk/api From johnl@iecc.com Sun Oct 21 08:29:46 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 A18D121F8477 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.729 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pco-yw4n3FgN for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 08:29:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 9038E21F85B8 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 08:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 46076 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2012 15:29:43 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Oct 2012 15:29:43 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:vbr-info; s=508414e7.xn--yuvv84g.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=wxGOuJMjKtLYuEdgtTiC/EPiKTGiaBEAorCaGlz0YSs=; b=YeDBW01GHWlOQ8uYkO9o/1La7nhU+qJy2komzPtVjY1JsbKl/LQ37reTRoAvCRRskeTcAUL8jTAMmg/SwNqvC0DqyFsmGcYdUefbXnPDQu9MOZkeOaK3LQABssv1pSpM8HePNYgSZiaH6JluzGfZwVnBnKAsUJkhZHU204NyPUU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:vbr-info; s=508414e7.xn--yuvv84g.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=wxGOuJMjKtLYuEdgtTiC/EPiKTGiaBEAorCaGlz0YSs=; b=cGW1PJRIr2M1tP6f29A4BOlUsaWAxgu021y9x6gg9S3Efjkalk7WvGhejtnJ6x9BW7TRAYsQP+drAObbXBpiODci8T2GqhBneh7iwhtK+iChsrrumSVprHOFfwLdF/8ht32W1PyDFDerdtxTSi5jmV99JqzR1ZgcPRbT4OYGl7w= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 21 Oct 2012 15:29:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20121021152920.18141.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] Security Requirements: Authorization X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 15:29:46 -0000 >It seems to me that an RDAP server that includes non-mandatory HTTP >authentication support solves all of these. It does, but keep in mind the point about federated authentication among groups of servers. OAuth solves a real problem, although I am not sure at this point whether it solves a WEIRDS problem. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Sun Oct 21 10:30:18 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 AD5CE21F89B6 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:30:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.737 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15lj9XCWVaEd for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:30:17 -0700 (PDT) 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 9DB2921F89B3 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 68317 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2012 17:30:15 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Oct 2012 17:30:15 -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=50843127.xn--9vv.k1208; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=IR2g9l3ePxlt5+lNOXjKEdoGAKlzPHgcG9O1xFTdCVo=; b=haTrIIUqiNL3grtP5U+UHJFDwWA0fz5xgWuWZhoO/lvNBGCkDT4sc+O2aLDVFaxD0qj/NUr0M0jF8xRlXXah0QCAPgJ+6mGiGet0d8z5FlNu28bGNJB9Btlk5o6maMTKKMbiTVuiUjPGeMQH1WL5gCFDPczjDyBIyvGzh8u6l5I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=50843127.xn--9vv.k1208; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=IR2g9l3ePxlt5+lNOXjKEdoGAKlzPHgcG9O1xFTdCVo=; b=G9+BT1km/ubZYXrrpwkZMQv1xN0ikHcOVTylNVXMje51MohOJPVNsQ8oltDXrZtsRe5DCUO/tm5m5Wr6a5/adMjYagXYJ7U5gbacomoCVnjA8iymAk6BN6+NOsShsAA8TceWY0XIxV40hPqIXqyHI7+a1GzDJvOj7TTV7LkTdKE= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 21 Oct 2012 17:29:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20121021172953.22274.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] Getting involved? (learned about this at UKNOF23) X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 21 Oct 2012 17:30:18 -0000 >Is it too late to get involved? Not at all. We've barely gotten started. >I wrote our API (SureVoIP API - >http://www.surevoip.co.uk/support/wiki/api_documentation) and would >like to help and review where I can. That seems reasonable for what it does, but you might want to review the archives and charter and be sure you understand what WEIRDS is here to do. It's to replace what WHOIS does now, and experience strongly suggests that it's important to constrain its scope or we will never finish. -- 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 bje@apnic.net Sun Oct 21 17:56:27 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 D6E2521F8900 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:56:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gL2S-H3Jfir for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A78C21F872E for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:3959:ce4b:634:a7b2] (unknown [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:3959:ce4b:634:a7b2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC37B6894; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:56:23 +1000 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4457E471-5869-492B-8C48-77ABF8414F5D"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\)) From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:56:23 +1000 Message-Id: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> References: To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1498) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 00:56:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4457E471-5869-492B-8C48-77ABF8414F5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 19/10/2012, at 9:33 PM, Andy Newton wrote: > On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >=20 >> Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? >> Auto-translate? Murray has the right sense of what I meant, for both of these. >> Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >> possible via a Vary header? >=20 > That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple = language > tags in the response. Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with "possible considerations" of multiple language tags. But, with this point, what I'm suggesting is that the user of a = particular client likely has one or a few preferred languages, which they could potentially indicate to the server, in the event that the server has = multiple translations. This would be applicable for mixed language responses as well as single language responses, since it only indicates a client = preference, not a strict requirement. My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever = mechanisms or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future = operators. I think there's a use case for language preference indication, as per = below, and I think Ning is suggesting a use case for tagging the language of an entire response, inline in the response. What are your (collective = "your") thoughts on how reasonable these use cases are? >> Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, = but >> there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, = varying) >> ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple = language >> options available for many response fields. >=20 > Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query = it? > That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. = Are > there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' The data labels are sometimes translated, sometimes not. In the native language responses, there's often an English translation. JPRS includes an English help/info block even for the native language response. I = don't know for sure if they collect the information in multiple languages, = though I think they do - any JPRS or JPNIC operators on the list to confirm? Character set is ISO-2022-JP. I don't know if there are other services with such a switch mechanism, either - we're all aware of how hard it is to find out what's actually = done out there on port 43 :-) - but for another comparison whois.kisa.kr = returns both native and english output, at least for "kisa.kr". Character set = is EUC-KR. Byron --Apple-Mail=_4457E471-5869-492B-8C48-77ABF8414F5D Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEBjCCBAIw ggLqoAMCAQICCCoPITf60ZNDMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIw EAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNi YW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMB4XDTExMTEyODAxNTEzNloXDTEy MTEyNzAxNTEzNlowgZIxGTAXBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEBDAliamUtc3RhZmYxEjAQBgNVBAMMCWJqZS1z dGFmZjEOMAwGA1UEKgwFQnlyb24xETAPBgNVBAQMCEVsbGFjb3R0MQ8wDQYDVQQLDAZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVzdGFmZjCCASIwDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANVQo/BOmY5CCWNeAldlgoWZKOzIZpOsFzD6NB2oAErtclDu uiZsXfl+L97UOwUlhu1eGlY5gKuAhGcrEBvDgTT1eEr3vkdKILhJw78s5n8eLOWrmhPKBnW8gSn9 7MbAxVQx3V1/RpToKAF8cR4il03Z7mveaBQbaivM2jReHcgfJPt9w0qhTVZO2POLuVClRcExaNt1 h+QdMLa6VU5x7rJo9JFqjTAvJzMApW+WY/7oumR9+4a9ZGThlETI2b83XAMrrJ7DHm237Jskgl+X FGILIq8zOhNiAbhEg+gAyJ8bOzwwydDY+ggWQ466duZZq4wxmr1+YhxVf51v2R5MSicCAwEAAaN6 MHgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFIQXSivz3cLpaFy23DdhpGhyyo5pMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAU4D23klvuLqOyPnnbRaswQi8BS6wwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgHyMBgGA1UdEQQRMA+BDWJqZUBh cG5pYy5uZXQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAEk9zi8BTUEY4rqDGEIFDNIpmX/yS3fTah39Mele pV93sRsjqLy2G47vhhnkgSTEWV2jJOD7tjzjswxtWUL6KG36dUDVL3XbQ1OObxkiDJbqje4BoWrd a8/5PoIPC0hkSDXGoitvoXkL8Pd9x9Y+kyMlKo1C0lk5bCUG4yjk5wVLuSSm5m+KZ3+YVdPp6dKp C0DRhvFdsrz2zIOT/sWheCQO0HRU300UYngB/xoqc1KWH2dROIUhLqwtyoCQbQKQjW9C+JMMw2Ij vfVXJZGMWjbp5l8RQeUSJ+0vVJXJbIL6PfEsyQupUV3AJsSTRmtllqzCBCz2Abd14xyeqw0eJfwx ggMtMIIDKQIBATB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAU BgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYC Y2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBgzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMjEwMjIwMDU2MjRaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRc knysY0HK29hZB/Rin0n9IVmpyTCBjwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGBMH8wczERMA8GA1UEAwwIc3RhZmYt Y2ExEjAQBgNVBAsMCVRlY2huaWNhbDEWMBQGA1UECgwNQVBOSUMgUHR5IEx0ZDERMA8GA1UEBwwI QnJpc2JhbmUxEjAQBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgJjYTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQVUCCCoPITf60ZNDMIGRBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBgaB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQB GRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBXtDncgXfNbb9u 8Hw3+4IjXGemZkpvGySRmo1ZS8iFGO8Cnj1twNdRwyty0SwJW5V9v+ulPO3Os2uW0PyqifPCUZc5 EsCoCOqe7dMq/HuML503UAOW88cnqmadGuAYktGyuPMKM7AfoYnAkg6MWeULdxEAp4ZQy2KBNw0k sD1qsYtbV90gnwk28vEpTmv2TmVpNFsi+CDMjH2CtOBwcswlkfWyTrvMT9C1ZhG3VCinhN2xA0tF 7LiMGpB/fsR1KFfrm2bEzKNulIGclbKuEASMM5ZTQQOzsY97QAyYu1R5LGPzu2eftrjJb58qPbNt Ca7Bd+U0zM6dWdCdFlIcfYjDAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_4457E471-5869-492B-8C48-77ABF8414F5D-- From zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Sun Oct 21 19:28:52 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 F091921F8B46 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:28:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sko2hLgZDuto for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7F8D21F84E9 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:28:50 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo95e6383c) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:28:42 +0800 From: "Linlin Zhou" To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:28:44 +0800 Message-ID: <006801cdaffc$f5365350$dfa2f9f0$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac2tz1/C+Z5VO4sIR6iz5Sn4DJFfbwCKDfyA Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 02:28:52 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:57 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] ICANN 45 report > > Colleagues, > > 7) ICANN has commissioned some deep statistical studies about who's using > WHOIS data and how today. When the report is published, we should take a > look at it to see if there's anything in there we need to take as input to our work. It would be nice and I'd like to take a look at it. When it will be published? > At the same time, they were unaware of the WHOIS data inventory work being > undertaken by a subset of WEIRDS, and that might be information they would > find useful as well. > Share this information here. We've already submitted the draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-weirds-dnrd-ap-object-inventory-00). Linlin From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 01:14:39 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 2449621F84AB for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:14:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VlXxr0PXNUaq for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638EA21F8467 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQD9f-0008N8-GV; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:14:35 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQD9f-0005V2-D6; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:14:35 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:14:35 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022081435.GE9485@x28.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 Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 08:14:39 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:57:14AM -0400, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 1) One ccTLD participant brought up the "Why should we bother?" > argument. Basically, there's a cost for them to provide the service > and very little immediate benefit. I made it clear that in my role as > a working group co-chair and participant, there's nothing we're > bringing to the table that can or should compel anyone to implement > it; we're simply interested in describing the format of the question > and the format of the answer. ICANN has no policy control over ccTLDs > either, so there's no pressure there. I hinted, rather, that the > impetus to implement may well come from the community; a security > vendor, for example, who relies on the availability of WHOIS data to > make a determination about the source of some traffic may well > conclude that the non-availability of WHOIS service about that source > is an indication that those sources aren't good net citizens and > perhaps have something to hide, and default to a defensive posture, > which would leave those sources very unhappy. Unfortunately I don't > believe that point was heeded. the question could have been read as "could you please elaborate on the problem statement" and that part has not been addressed well in that very session. While i applaud the outreach effort in general, i'm increasingly concerned by the flawed perception that ICANN is _the_ venue for discussing or collecting requirements with critical questions being responded to just with the hint that 'if you're not under ICANN contract, we don't force you to implement anything'. -Peter From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 01:17:08 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 EE17521F8BEF for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qr2D7H2JNp-K for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9980E21F8BA2 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQDC4-0008QW-Pk; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:17:04 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQDC4-0005YV-MN; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:17:04 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:17:04 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022081704.GF9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <20121020101558.3621.qmail@joyce.lan> <49830A7A-CC2B-48D6-97F7-F731020CB162@paypal.com> 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] validate, was ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 08:17:08 -0000 On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 09:47:04PM +0100, John R Levine wrote: > Are the extensions per-data type? Per field? Global? Can there be more > than one verification field per data field? Do all fields of the same > time in a record need consistent verification info? ENUM might (not) serve as an example for handling validation. At least you'd want to know who validated when under what validation policy. So, there's a registry for validation policies to be defined along with a validation policy framework. Good luck. -Peter From olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Mon Oct 22 03:05:47 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 45DE421F8B71 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:05:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fuqzM9jZQbNn for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7054621F8B4D for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-100.nlnetlabs.nl (dhcp-100.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9MA5Mex089639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:05:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.7 open.nlnetlabs.nl q9MA5Mex089639 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1350900329; bh=D1wbyCDBTY3CyxZR/S0gKYf2EyfkSdjGtXu2952urR8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=tGeZHc/m4Q3QoZV/bxlzTUOemedJ2HOTY9yGFSYTo7sv0sVrtfWnBlDMfDuECSUAQ bt2RmE8twz91YrpfyLcCmpyxhxiVzEZ1QA5zQxA1tn2nSQbQ2Sn1y7yxC8SPA0rLoK ZkR6bqoAs1TJ07migcurxqBR7yR4FkMwfcWe1x60= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_53B69039-18F7-456A-90A2-5CD98E242BAE" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Olaf Kolkman In-Reply-To: <20121020100708.3271.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:05:34 +0200 Message-Id: <46B1F174-EA8D-46D5-8C39-E0C3BEA672F2@NLnetLabs.nl> References: <20121020100708.3271.qmail@joyce.lan> To: John Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.1]); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:05:24 +0200 (CEST) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 10:05:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_53B69039-18F7-456A-90A2-5CD98E242BAE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 20, 2012, at 12:07 PM, John Levine wrote: >=20 > By the way, has anyone heard whether ICANN picked a contractor and > if so who it is? The bids closed months ago. I disclosed NLnet Labs was bidding, we did not win the bid. I am not = sure if it is public who won the bid. In the context of the point brought up earlier, here's a platitude: any = running-code experience should be welcomed and taken into account. --Olaf NLnet Labs Olaf M. Kolkman www.NLnetLabs.nl olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands --Apple-Mail=_53B69039-18F7-456A-90A2-5CD98E242BAE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

if so who it is?  The bids closed = months ago.

Olaf M. Kolkman


Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The = Netherlands



= --Apple-Mail=_53B69039-18F7-456A-90A2-5CD98E242BAE-- From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 22 04:09:09 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 00BCD21F8471 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ofM09fB9X4x8 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og109.obsmtp.com (exprod6og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4605B21F8200 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob109.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIUpSjLnMtJwuIUtetH6EeaHKoqn5HVv@postini.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:03 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9MB8ttq018687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:08:57 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:08:54 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrqv3ZFxtLOt79UmSYhrXeKBZepfCy5OAgAJhYkA= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:08:54 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69F0E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: , <20121020101558.3621.qmail@joyce.lan> <49830A7A-CC2B-48D6-97F7-F731020CB162@paypal.com> In-Reply-To: <49830A7A-CC2B-48D6-97F7-F731020CB162@paypal.com> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 11:09:09 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:44 PM > To: John Levine > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report >=20 >=20 >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 > On Oct 20, 2012, at 3:16 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > > > We could try and come up with a set of categories, i.e., syntax > valid, > > semantics valid, contact verified, but it sounds to me like an area > > where we don't know what we're doing. So unless someone offers an > > actual implementation of something more than a validation date, I'd > > rather not guess. >=20 > Which is why an extensible mechanism is preferable. An example would be > TLS and its ability to support new key and encryption methods. >=20 > A small set of defined categories, perhaps one, would be defined along > with a mechanism to add others allowing others to extend our work as > needs arise. Seems like a desirable, and easy-to-implement feature > given TLS and other examples. Then would you mind providing appropriate text and JSON examples? I still d= on't have a good sense of what's really needed here beyond some very vague = high-level assertions. Scott From Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz Mon Oct 22 04:09:11 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 C3D0A21F89D4 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.322, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dco5jEai-dDz for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp137.ord.emailsrvr.com (smtp137.ord.emailsrvr.com [173.203.6.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DDB21F87E0 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4D29F3008C; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:09:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp18.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: edlewis-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPA id 362AB300C0; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:02:48 -0500 To: Don Blumenthal From: Edward Lewis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] SAC055: SSAC Comment on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 11:09:11 -0000 Faith or not in SSAC members, Don's point is important. When I read the document I did notice that it was written with an eye on "what can ICANN" do and not "what the IETF should define." I.e., the report is not sufficient to be a requirements document for WEIRDS but it is valued input. Besides the gTLD space as being just a portion of the problem statement, the report includes requirements that I would guess (lacking any other documentation) that are out of scope for WEIRDS. For example, the accuracy aspects and audits there of. And the proxy-for-privacy features. It would be very nice if the RIRs did document what they expected to get out of a WHOIS replacement protocol, as well as a place where non-ICANN-affiliated (cc)TLDs could also collect their needs and expectations. (Again, to draw on EPP experience, much of the early work was reflective of just a gTLD perspective. Later in the evolution of the initial RFCs some ccTLDs came along with some different perspectives that had a noticeable, albeit minor in the grand scheme of things, impact on the final result.) So - from this we have a statement that covers gTLDs. But nothing covering (completely) the remaining (majority) of TLDs and RIRs. At 14:30 -0400 9/21/12, Don Blumenthal wrote: >On 9/21/12 2:14 PM, "Andy Newton" wrote: > > >Don, I have full faith that the members of the SSAC know the space quite >>well and know the larger scope of WHOIS. However, the point might need to >>be made repeatedly by the SSAC to others. The point is especially useful >>to answer such assertions that everybody can just go to >>http://www.internic.net and all the problems of WHOIS will be solved. >> >>-andy > >Agreed. I was just giving background on the scope of the Whois RT report >that might be useful when looking at the SSAC comments on it. > >don > >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars! From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 22 04:18:32 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 45CFB21F8B8A for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:18:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KduW5jm5lNkc for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og116.obsmtp.com (exprod6og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D10221F8909 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob116.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIUrhOhjcpVtu0Wla9rAwYKtiMOwfRNc@postini.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:18:30 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9MBIPlV018961 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:18:25 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:18:25 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Data Integrity Thread-Index: Ac2q3mXV4mllICcTQtyt98SEPBv7iQEhZBSAADiTojA= Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:18:24 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69F12F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6959A1@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Data Integrity X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 11:18:32 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 12:14 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Data Integrity >=20 > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott > wrote: > > Data integrity ("The property that data has not been changed, > destroyed, or lost in an unauthorized or accidental manner") is another > security service for which I haven't been able to find specific > protocol requirements. There's a lot of discussion of needs for data > accuracy, but I don't think that's a protocol issue. Are there any data > integrity requirements? >=20 > Could this be the same as, or related to, ICANN's vague "validation" > requirement? I think people will conflate the two, but that's not really what I'm gettin= g it. I'm approaching the integrity question from the perspective of protec= ting the client-server data exchange. I'm having a hard time figuring out h= ow to cast the data validation thing as a security requirement. It sounds l= ike more of a policy or data use requirement/need to me. Scott From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 04:44:47 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 5FC2C21F8B4A for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDdEz4EPhY0m for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A9921F8B4D for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQGR2-0001G0-Ng; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:44:44 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQGR2-0000D6-Jz; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:44:44 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:44:44 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022114444.GH9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 11:44:47 -0000 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:56:23AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: > My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever mechanisms > or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, > and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future operators. where does _language_ come into play? The tags are going to be standardized, the identifiers are just that. Could you elaborate? -Peter From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 06:33:34 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 CB7AA21F8B81 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT) 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=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8wHEeVq4zYjT for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6035721F8B89 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQI8A-0001um-8U; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:33:22 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQI8A-0001qV-58; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:33:22 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:33:22 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022133322.GI9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692DC3@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D692DC3@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Authorization X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 13:33:34 -0000 On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:57:23PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > 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. > The protocol MUST provide an anonymous access mechanism that may be turned on or off based on the policy of an operator. > > Thoughts on these requirements? 3707 doesn't say much about authorization. It describes the requirements listed above in the context of access control. the "MUST NOT prohibit an operator" clauses in the first two might benefit from a more positive wording, although I tend to understand that "MUST NOT prohibit" and "MUST allow" are different things. It's hard to see where a protocol could really prohibit the operator applying some access controls, except in an - unfortunately not too unliklely - case where the protocol spec gets (mis-)used as a service description. -Peter From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 06:38:50 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 EDD9421F8BD6 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EYR5LcBzNNLZ for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB1821F8BCB for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQIDH-0001xB-LZ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:38:39 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQIDH-0001ux-I2; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:38:39 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:38:39 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022133839.GJ9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <50817C1C.808@afilias.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20121019091750.09c9a7c0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121019091750.09c9a7c0@resistor.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 13:38:50 -0000 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:34:29AM -0700, SM wrote: > There isn't any mention of data retention in the charter. It seems > to me that the WG will end up trying to solve "the Whois problem" if > it tackles all the requirements being thrown in its path. +1; while this oe "whowas" might be small extensions to the protocol, (probably only a date added to the query for "whowas"), they are different services. Since we have to expect the WEIRDS spec be misused as service description, i'd suggest the group stick to its charter. -Peter From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 07:43:21 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 0A7F321F8BC1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:43:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCZZw6WFivHg for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A0421F8BD4 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQJDq-0002JA-3I; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:43:18 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQJDp-0002t2-Vx; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:43:18 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:43:17 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022144317.GK9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 14:43:21 -0000 On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 09:15:50PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Not specifically. We get that property for free if the request has > been secured by TLS (i.e., https), which seems the most likely > solution to the anti-eavesdropping notion, but I've never heard a need > for the capability to provide replies that are signed yet not > encrypted. there is a difference between a signed object, which could be used detached from the transport and the TLS secured connection itself. There is also a diffference in semantics between object and channel security, in general and in particular. There are TLD registries that offer "signed whois" today. Given that this is a third party attestation to some extent, I'm not sure it really falls into the 'non-repudiation' category. -Peter From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 07:49:07 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 5045521F8596 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:49:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pucIUZdAC1HH for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B718321F856D for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQJJS-0002Lp-2W; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:49:06 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQJJR-0002xk-VH; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:49:06 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:49:05 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 14:49:07 -0000 On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 01:57:06PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > I'm not aware of more specific availability requirements. Are there > > any? > > I should note that the "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final Report" describes a need for abuse contacts. That need can be translated into a "RDAP MUST provide the ability to manage abuse contacts" (feel free to suggest alternate text) requirement. I am not sure I understand: is this a protocol or an operational requirement? And the presence or absence of certain records or attributes really looks like a policy requirement - unless this was meant to say that even under worst conditions the server was supposed to provide abuse information. That again would be an operational requirement. Also, my Karthago, this is _but one_ list of requirements that may not apply here. -Peter From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 22 08:13:12 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 6856F21F8C1F for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:13:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCP01AMe3kmz for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og103.obsmtp.com (exprod6og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A17721F8C18 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob103.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIVihIjVafpJFGKMRDY4JrNs+OCIFCqX@postini.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:13:11 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9MFD525027076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:13:05 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:13:05 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Peter Koch , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability Thread-Index: Ac2q2tnVT7QJ2YE1RGuDk9yjko8FiQAADKLwAWq3KYAACFuCkA== Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:13:04 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A27FC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 15:13:12 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Peter Koch > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:49 AM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability >=20 > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 01:57:06PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >=20 > > > I'm not aware of more specific availability requirements. Are there > > > any? > > > > I should note that the "Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements Final > Report" describes a need for abuse contacts. That need can be > translated into a "RDAP MUST provide the ability to manage abuse > contacts" (feel free to suggest alternate text) requirement. >=20 > I am not sure I understand: is this a protocol or an operational > requirement? > And the presence or absence of certain records or attributes really > looks like a policy requirement - unless this was meant to say that > even under worst conditions the server was supposed to provide abuse > information. That again would be an operational requirement. > Also, my Karthago, this is _but one_ list of requirements that may not > apply here. My take: it's an operational requirement that has an implied protocol requi= rement. I think the protocol requirement is that there MUST be a way to ask= for and deliver information about different types of contacts. Scott From bje@apnic.net Mon Oct 22 16:30:44 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 0DF0011E80DE for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:30:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNo-GWp+mRh0 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EFF11E80D9 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:31b4:7697:4ccb:6542] (unknown [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:31b4:7697:4ccb:6542]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0521FB68F3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:30:40 +1000 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C2544291-55A3-4E02-9DE2-174B82826F5D"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: <20121022114444.GH9485@x28.adm.denic.de> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:30:38 +1000 Message-Id: References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <20121022114444.GH9485@x28.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 22 Oct 2012 23:30:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C2544291-55A3-4E02-9DE2-174B82826F5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 22/10/2012, at 9:44 PM, Peter Koch wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:56:23AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: >=20 >> My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever = mechanisms >> or systems indicate language or language preference need to be = optional, >> and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future = operators. >=20 > where does _language_ come into play? The tags are going to be = standardized, > the identifiers are just that. Could you elaborate? The contents of fields such as remarks, names, and server notices may = all be in languages other than English. In some cases, the contents of = fields such as address may also be in a language other than English. = The field tag names will not be localized, and identifiers aren't in any = language, per se, of course. Speaking as an operator, I will not take advantage of any language = tagging features in the protocol, because here at APNIC we don't have = any meta-information about language in our registration data. CNNIC may = - Ning can speak to this - and both JPRS and KISA likely may as well, = judging by their port 43 services. Byron= --Apple-Mail=_C2544291-55A3-4E02-9DE2-174B82826F5D Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEBjCCBAIw ggLqoAMCAQICCCoPITf60ZNDMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIw EAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNi YW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMB4XDTExMTEyODAxNTEzNloXDTEy MTEyNzAxNTEzNlowgZIxGTAXBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEBDAliamUtc3RhZmYxEjAQBgNVBAMMCWJqZS1z dGFmZjEOMAwGA1UEKgwFQnlyb24xETAPBgNVBAQMCEVsbGFjb3R0MQ8wDQYDVQQLDAZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVzdGFmZjCCASIwDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANVQo/BOmY5CCWNeAldlgoWZKOzIZpOsFzD6NB2oAErtclDu uiZsXfl+L97UOwUlhu1eGlY5gKuAhGcrEBvDgTT1eEr3vkdKILhJw78s5n8eLOWrmhPKBnW8gSn9 7MbAxVQx3V1/RpToKAF8cR4il03Z7mveaBQbaivM2jReHcgfJPt9w0qhTVZO2POLuVClRcExaNt1 h+QdMLa6VU5x7rJo9JFqjTAvJzMApW+WY/7oumR9+4a9ZGThlETI2b83XAMrrJ7DHm237Jskgl+X FGILIq8zOhNiAbhEg+gAyJ8bOzwwydDY+ggWQ466duZZq4wxmr1+YhxVf51v2R5MSicCAwEAAaN6 MHgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFIQXSivz3cLpaFy23DdhpGhyyo5pMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAU4D23klvuLqOyPnnbRaswQi8BS6wwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgHyMBgGA1UdEQQRMA+BDWJqZUBh cG5pYy5uZXQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAEk9zi8BTUEY4rqDGEIFDNIpmX/yS3fTah39Mele pV93sRsjqLy2G47vhhnkgSTEWV2jJOD7tjzjswxtWUL6KG36dUDVL3XbQ1OObxkiDJbqje4BoWrd a8/5PoIPC0hkSDXGoitvoXkL8Pd9x9Y+kyMlKo1C0lk5bCUG4yjk5wVLuSSm5m+KZ3+YVdPp6dKp C0DRhvFdsrz2zIOT/sWheCQO0HRU300UYngB/xoqc1KWH2dROIUhLqwtyoCQbQKQjW9C+JMMw2Ij vfVXJZGMWjbp5l8RQeUSJ+0vVJXJbIL6PfEsyQupUV3AJsSTRmtllqzCBCz2Abd14xyeqw0eJfwx ggMtMIIDKQIBATB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAU BgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYC Y2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBgzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMjEwMjIyMzMwMzhaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRX qLIgVRV1Or47DplYx4h6Dh7tcjCBjwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGBMH8wczERMA8GA1UEAwwIc3RhZmYt Y2ExEjAQBgNVBAsMCVRlY2huaWNhbDEWMBQGA1UECgwNQVBOSUMgUHR5IEx0ZDERMA8GA1UEBwwI QnJpc2JhbmUxEjAQBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgJjYTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQVUCCCoPITf60ZNDMIGRBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBgaB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQB GRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQCWFJOI9j5XKF5s xs/kU0PZmUehFFAPcwkFRga96gkDInIA9UhQoMVyuVIKCJn42+ol7vw2+bOE2jotrqtEnLNhAzRJ lcVe6B4rhbzvs3wts63Wb5SeYpCTUQGGx3f2h0vt8RgNZW377FGT439sHYTHCzht63jWwzX04XI9 QkE4Ptrd19NPRPdUe6WUqIS+i2HyaSuun0aH05N3B9nmFLam2WiCzMlIVVaekx0Krw3f73w8cfLq bRTdc8N9Ojyy4hrLTxqDLsKNuvhHYbcajTTty3wYCEYD4mb6T533Ne2C7Q/kOD7FsevYNYEF1Nce 2rmYqqKFCM261q5SPWAC91EsAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_C2544291-55A3-4E02-9DE2-174B82826F5D-- From peter@denic.de Mon Oct 22 21:58:01 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 EFC4921F898B for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:58:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4uvUx+P7KwG9 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF9921F898D for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TQWYw-0006rC-Og; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:57:58 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1TQWYw-0007CR-LE; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:57:58 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:57:58 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: weirds@ietf.org Message-ID: <20121023045758.GR9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <20121022114444.GH9485@x28.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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 04:58:02 -0000 On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:30:38AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: > The contents of fields such as remarks, names, and server notices may all be in languages other than English. In some cases, the contents of fields such as address may also be in a language other than English. The field tag names will not be localized, and identifiers aren't in any language, per se, of course. and we are sure that this is about language, not script or character set? What language tagging would be appropriate for your or my name? -Peter From bje@apnic.net Mon Oct 22 23:59:37 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 F032221F849A for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:59:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.986, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7G82aZGhFZsb for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BC621F8431 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dynamic209.apnic.net (dynamic209.apnic.net [203.119.42.209]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78B0B67EA; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:59:33 +1000 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_28A0DE6C-B935-4F96-BE23-F46C10CE10BA"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: <20121023045758.GR9485@x28.adm.denic.de> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:59:33 +1000 Message-Id: <4B0BB496-DCA8-4EF9-8A64-2883653DFE35@apnic.net> References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <20121022114444.GH9485@x28.adm.denic.de> <20121023045758.GR9485@x28.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 06:59:38 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_28A0DE6C-B935-4F96-BE23-F46C10CE10BA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Peter, On 23/10/2012, at 2:57 PM, Peter Koch wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:30:38AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: >=20 >> The contents of fields such as remarks, names, and server notices may = all be in languages other than English. In some cases, the contents of = fields such as address may also be in a language other than English. = The field tag names will not be localized, and identifiers aren't in any = language, per se, of course. >=20 > and we are sure that this is about language, not script or character = set? $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' # warning, ISO-2022-JP, not = UTF-anything =E2=80=A6 [=E7=99=BB=E9=8C=B2=E8=80=85=E5=90=8D] = =E6=A0=AA=E5=BC=8F=E4=BC=9A=E7=A4=BE=E6=97=A5=E6=9C=AC=E3=83=AC=E3=82=B8=E3= =82=B9=E3=83=88=E3=83=AA=E3=82=B5=E3=83=BC=E3=83=93=E3=82=B9 [Registrant] Japan Registry Services Co.,Ltd. =E2=80=A6 These two fields are the same information. In RDAP, the data tag would = be the same, but the content might be expressed either as the Japanese = text or as the English text. I think this would be best handled with a = language tag, but if I'm mistaken, please correct me. In XML, I'd = expect to see something like: =E6=A0=AA=E5=BC=8F=E4=BC=9A=E7=A4=BE=E6=97=A5=E6=9C=AC=E3=83= =AC=E3=82=B8=E3=82=B9=E3=83=88=E3=83=AA=E3=82=B5=E3=83=BC=E3=83=93=E3=82=B9= Japan Registry Services = Co.,Ltd. I'm not sure how I'd express this in JSON, but right now I'm just = wondering whether the use case exists to do it, and putting forward the = things I'm personally aware of that might argue in favour of it. I don't know when, why, or how you might signal the script used, as = opposed to the language. Character set for RDAP would normally be = UTF-8, as per draft-weirds-using-http-01 s.12.2, though one might use = HTTP signalling to change that. Byron= --Apple-Mail=_28A0DE6C-B935-4F96-BE23-F46C10CE10BA Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEBjCCBAIw ggLqoAMCAQICCCoPITf60ZNDMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIw EAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNi YW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMB4XDTExMTEyODAxNTEzNloXDTEy MTEyNzAxNTEzNlowgZIxGTAXBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEBDAliamUtc3RhZmYxEjAQBgNVBAMMCWJqZS1z dGFmZjEOMAwGA1UEKgwFQnlyb24xETAPBgNVBAQMCEVsbGFjb3R0MQ8wDQYDVQQLDAZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVzdGFmZjCCASIwDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANVQo/BOmY5CCWNeAldlgoWZKOzIZpOsFzD6NB2oAErtclDu uiZsXfl+L97UOwUlhu1eGlY5gKuAhGcrEBvDgTT1eEr3vkdKILhJw78s5n8eLOWrmhPKBnW8gSn9 7MbAxVQx3V1/RpToKAF8cR4il03Z7mveaBQbaivM2jReHcgfJPt9w0qhTVZO2POLuVClRcExaNt1 h+QdMLa6VU5x7rJo9JFqjTAvJzMApW+WY/7oumR9+4a9ZGThlETI2b83XAMrrJ7DHm237Jskgl+X FGILIq8zOhNiAbhEg+gAyJ8bOzwwydDY+ggWQ466duZZq4wxmr1+YhxVf51v2R5MSicCAwEAAaN6 MHgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFIQXSivz3cLpaFy23DdhpGhyyo5pMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAU4D23klvuLqOyPnnbRaswQi8BS6wwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgHyMBgGA1UdEQQRMA+BDWJqZUBh cG5pYy5uZXQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAEk9zi8BTUEY4rqDGEIFDNIpmX/yS3fTah39Mele pV93sRsjqLy2G47vhhnkgSTEWV2jJOD7tjzjswxtWUL6KG36dUDVL3XbQ1OObxkiDJbqje4BoWrd a8/5PoIPC0hkSDXGoitvoXkL8Pd9x9Y+kyMlKo1C0lk5bCUG4yjk5wVLuSSm5m+KZ3+YVdPp6dKp C0DRhvFdsrz2zIOT/sWheCQO0HRU300UYngB/xoqc1KWH2dROIUhLqwtyoCQbQKQjW9C+JMMw2Ij vfVXJZGMWjbp5l8RQeUSJ+0vVJXJbIL6PfEsyQupUV3AJsSTRmtllqzCBCz2Abd14xyeqw0eJfwx ggMtMIIDKQIBATB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAU BgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYC Y2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBgzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMjEwMjMwNjU5MzRaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBTP 9r4+Gcq9ai3enBT3nHPLfS8FITCBjwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGBMH8wczERMA8GA1UEAwwIc3RhZmYt Y2ExEjAQBgNVBAsMCVRlY2huaWNhbDEWMBQGA1UECgwNQVBOSUMgUHR5IEx0ZDERMA8GA1UEBwwI QnJpc2JhbmUxEjAQBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgJjYTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQVUCCCoPITf60ZNDMIGRBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBgaB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQB GRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQCtyGbGWU5wFCKn jYlGYXNSl6LJbBQq9wrQ+8IkLqVxFPs8kWoPTKH/UAOSxv/vo3/84jJPxM0lShrCvRL89Q/thscN raGsTwiiVI8RWAHAE4konkMUOp5MaG2Qwrr/AEutciiMZvrVklJ8DtPhUbQe2sFlelXamLSo2+TB EhJIrpMZ68KnBNuvOVVmvnVpxjPGB0achKWOZEAV2t3PgH3EsWAciBPXRBnUNCUQKjyywm9gD5fH tdK7YXEjPkS7p6pmItxNEBsYJfaJ6sVeSmc2oK8DecnY8RyTYZ/JdM/9K6oUj20638s08pBGzUqG Gw5zoJBv8ba/xZc+cvmyPIGGAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_28A0DE6C-B935-4F96-BE23-F46C10CE10BA-- From andy@arin.net Tue Oct 23 07:05:48 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 6CC8821F8578 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.262 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.262 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CAqIgsPwVin0 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8F811E80C5 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 7A62C16510D; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F75165042; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.20) by CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:05:29 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:05:37 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Byron Ellacott Thread-Topic: [weirds] Internationalization Issues Thread-Index: Ac2oJlgRtaHIIukgTomzDF6pihPMsgFL/VEAABdlrAAADm99AACI/NeAAEV4rwA= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:05:36 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <74D44C9500EF3D4E9523703924DB7E10@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 14:05:48 -0000 On 10/21/12 8:56 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >>>Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >>> possible via a Vary header? >>=20 >> That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple language >> tags in the response. > >Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 >suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with "possible >considerations" of multiple language tags. I was assuming multiple tags as in the uses of xml:lang. >My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever mechanisms >or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, >and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future >operators. I totally agree. I favor working on this but just want to understand it better. >>Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query it? >> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. Are >> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? > >$ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' >$ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' > >$ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' >$ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' >From what I can tell, the /e just redacts information. Regardless, this isn't the same thing as a language label. It is more akin to the Accept header in HTTP. -andy From andy@arin.net Tue Oct 23 07:06:06 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 B908621F867B for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:06:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJMm6xLLITDV for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B8021F8578 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id AF53421366D; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699E7213665; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:06:05 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:05:55 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:06:04 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Internationalization Issues Thread-Index: Ac2oJlgRtaHIIukgTomzDF6pihPMsgFL/VEAABdlrAAADm99AABdiWyAAHDwRgA= Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:06:03 +0000 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/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <91870427AAE385439D1FE364A6383883@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 14:06:06 -0000 On 10/21/12 12:12 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >I take this to mean something like an indication that "Your client is >configured for French, but the reply appears to be in Farsi," for >example. That seems to be a reasonable use case. -andy From andy@arin.net Tue Oct 23 07:08:41 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 DB8DD11E80A6 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:08:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szPN6SNoxg1o for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0CE11E80A5 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id D434021366D; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A72213665; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.20) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:08:23 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:08:32 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report Thread-Index: AQHNrqwO1yZSBSPJn0GaLOZYQzxe3JfCy5KAgAKlYwCAAYFzgA== Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:08:31 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69F0E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.97] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 14:08:42 -0000 On 10/22/12 7:08 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Smith, Bill >> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:44 PM >> To: John Levine >> Cc: weirds@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [weirds] validate, was ICANN 45 report >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Sent from my iPhone >>=20 >> On Oct 20, 2012, at 3:16 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >>=20 >> >>=20 >> > >> > We could try and come up with a set of categories, i.e., syntax >> valid, >> > semantics valid, contact verified, but it sounds to me like an area >> > where we don't know what we're doing. So unless someone offers an >> > actual implementation of something more than a validation date, I'd >> > rather not guess. >>=20 >> Which is why an extensible mechanism is preferable. An example would be >> TLS and its ability to support new key and encryption methods. >>=20 >> A small set of defined categories, perhaps one, would be defined along >> with a mechanism to add others allowing others to extend our work as >> needs arise. Seems like a desirable, and easy-to-implement feature >> given TLS and other examples. > >Then would you mind providing appropriate text and JSON examples? I still >don't have a good sense of what's really needed here beyond some very >vague high-level assertions. I'm a little lost on the extensibility but we have that anyway. I would think the standard data model should be a boolean and/or a date and/or a URI referencing the validation policy. -andy From steve.sheng@icann.org Tue Oct 23 07:52:54 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 8869C21F8690 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9dJFGFymI+ix for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD8321F868F for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:52:52 -0700 From: Steve Sheng To: Peter Koch , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:52:50 -0700 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Internationalization Issues Thread-Index: Ac2xLhQe0XuNf92oSZSD7+Yxji8iDw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20121023045758.GR9485@x28.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3433823570_752751" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 14:52:55 -0000 --B_3433823570_752751 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Peter, We discussed this issue extensively within ICANN community. The proposal is that users should be allowed to submit registration data in his/her native language / script to the extent allowed by the registrar. In terms of which fields to internationalize, the proposed requirements are: - Domain Name: U-label and A-label - Nameserver: U-label and A-label - Registrar: US-ASCII - Registrant Name: Local language with language-script tags (e.g. Using tags as defined by RFC 5646) - Registrant contact information: local language with language-script tags One issues that is in active discussion within ICANN is in the case a registrant submit information in his/her local language/script, whether there should a requirement to translate and transliterate (into latin) this information. The policy community is starting a policy development process on that. For more information, you could refer to the ICANN Final Report on Internationalized Registration Data (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf), and the policy body's approval of this report and initiation of relevant policy work (Resolution No. 5 in http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions/#201210). Hope this helps. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Peter Koch To: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues >On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:30:38AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: > >> The contents of fields such as remarks, names, and server notices may >>all be in languages other than English. In some cases, the contents of >>fields such as address may also be in a language other than English. >>The field tag names will not be localized, and identifiers aren't in any >>language, per se, of course. > >and we are sure that this is about language, not script or character set? >What language tagging would be appropriate for your or my name? > >-Peter >_______________________________________________ >weirds mailing list >weirds@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --B_3433823570_752751 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIITmwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIITjDCCE4gCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC EWcwggbiMIIFyqADAgECAhABZMwilD7GxArmntmcL5R/MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xITAfBgNVBAMTGERpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EtMTAeFw0xMjA2MDcwMDAw MDBaFw0xNTA2MDcxMjAwMDBaMIGPMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5p YTEXMBUGA1UEBxMOTWFyaW5hIGRlbCBSZXkxPDA6BgNVBAoTM0ludGVybmV0IENvcnBvcmF0 aW9uIGZvciBBc3NpZ25lZCBOYW1lcyBhbmQgTnVtYmVyczEUMBIGA1UEAxMLU3RldmUgU2hl bmcwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDAk0LP2kd68QahDa0JHYITr25S nDBvdGo1ipsN1/W/XOD3D/TsHIwLW6fJGxggQe20WSP0z4C2bAwxm/86a7LgTSHFVHID6NCU wI3FjTukn1NKepT1qLFYJ+F+6Fr+PGXxAqkHjgtxvH6D6/i6CBVx23nhikAZZ9kohGXmrAeu q7WfAIKziZel8gESFvnlwl0ddgUB2onbPnytNSTkE7YadrP+seY5q8pH52M5m5BL5j6Ov6DS ix78Yx7rqRclE2MCTsRtlxy9MCQMf95/5Jhy+ZR6Hm+7kSXdosckMmqitzqw/sE6FNA+ChLQ PYA4KkmnRFZXjNLy0z3CqNOPj4hPAgMBAAGjggNkMIIDYDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQVABIrE5iy mQftHt+ivlcNK2cCzTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUz5w5ABV+GwM+WrkNqgAws9jssIwwIAYDVR0RBBkw F4EVc3RldmUuc2hlbmdAaWNhbm4ub3JnMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggr BgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwfQYDVR0fBHYwdDA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNl cnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEQ0EtMS5jcmwwOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmw0LmRp Z2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRENBLTEuY3JsMIIBxQYDVR0gBIIBvDCCAbgw ggG0BgpghkgBhv1sBAECMIIBpDA6BggrBgEFBQcCARYuaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20vc3NsLWNwcy1yZXBvc2l0b3J5Lmh0bTCCAWQGCCsGAQUFBwICMIIBVh6CAVIAQQBuAHkA IAB1AHMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABDAGUAcgB0AGkAZgBpAGMAYQB0AGUAIABjAG8A bgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAdABlAHMAIABhAGMAYwBlAHAAdABhAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUA IABEAGkAZwBpAEMAZQByAHQAIABDAFAALwBDAFAAUwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABSAGUA bAB5AGkAbgBnACAAUABhAHIAdAB5ACAAQQBnAHIAZQBlAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgA IABsAGkAbQBpAHQAIABsAGkAYQBiAGkAbABpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQByAGUAIABpAG4A YwBvAHIAcABvAHIAYQB0AGUAZAAgAGgAZQByAGUAaQBuACAAYgB5ACAAcgBlAGYAZQByAGUA bgBjAGUALjB3BggrBgEFBQcBAQRrMGkwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmRpZ2lj ZXJ0LmNvbTBBBggrBgEFBQcwAoY1aHR0cDovL2NhY2VydHMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lD ZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEQ0EtMS5jcnQwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEA zZA8H8eHQfdut5RjlHklXuWQYdnPAwmXRjcuqwhmvlsAghGxLyfQ6+glnd3TsSue+ighPszj 4i1ryRnBN4/SkywV+5gcP88BU94zAZJvSxmNeD5kR9HjZsL44PrpvgtDv0Q4Ap6PA3K9pals EPORzu1f+QcLFmSY/1E6nunOOjhAaSKwLKU8ThkwUmczI9Wm74SVNMjWJZlsHJsG4AoEUJe7 HG04zMo3/vadmoywbDHtmQjLZWNu/1OvBH0xaXnPW+meS8HaPALX6wDKPeUCxWq4/GLEqUWV L6IKJ3yRjbYrAjjGu1P4KTv9UsH0iEowiq+7ewjbD+dXexWsaXh8bTCCBsIwggWqoAMCAQIC EAoE3yF0XU0rjOozcgUAUOkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNV BAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMb RGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBSb290IENBMB4XDTA2MTExMDAwMDAwMFoXDTIxMTExMDAw MDAwMFowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQ d3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEhMB8GA1UEAxMYRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQS0xMIIB IjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA6IItmfnKwkKVpYBzQHDSnlZUXKnE0kEG j8kz/E1FkVyBn+0snPgWWd+etSQVwpi5tHdJ3InECtqvy15r7a2wcTHrzzpADEZNk+yLejYI A6sMNP4YSYL+x8cxSIB8HqIPkg5QycaH6zY/2DDD/6b3+6LNb3Mj/qxWBZDwMiEWicZwiPkF l32jx0PdAug7Pe2xQaPtP77blUjE7h6z8rwMK5nQxl0SQoHhg26Ccz8mSxSQrllmCsSNvtLO Bq6thG9IhJtPQLnxTPKvmPv2zkBdXPao8S+v7Iki8msYZbHBc63X8djPHgp0XEK4aH631XcK J1Z8D2KkPzIUYJX9BwSiCQIDAQABo4IDbzCCA2swDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgGGMDsGA1UdJQQ0 MDIGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwMGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDCDCC AcYGA1UdIASCAb0wggG5MIIBtQYLYIZIAYb9bAEDAAQwggGkMDoGCCsGAQUFBwIBFi5odHRw Oi8vd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9zc2wtY3BzLXJlcG9zaXRvcnkuaHRtMIIBZAYIKwYBBQUH AgIwggFWHoIBUgBBAG4AeQAgAHUAcwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAEMAZQByAHQAaQBm AGkAYwBhAHQAZQAgAGMAbwBuAHMAdABpAHQAdQB0AGUAcwAgAGEAYwBjAGUAcAB0AGEAbgBj AGUAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAEQAaQBnAGkAQwBlAHIAdAAgAEMAUAAvAEMAUABTACAAYQBu AGQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIAZQBsAHkAaQBuAGcAIABQAGEAcgB0AHkAIABBAGcAcgBlAGUAbQBl AG4AdAAgAHcAaABpAGMAaAAgAGwAaQBtAGkAdAAgAGwAaQBhAGIAaQBsAGkAdAB5ACAAYQBu AGQAIABhAHIAZQAgAGkAbgBjAG8AcgBwAG8AcgBhAHQAZQBkACAAaABlAHIAZQBpAG4AIABi AHkAIAByAGUAZgBlAHIAZQBuAGMAZQAuMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wfQYIKwYBBQUHAQEE cTBvMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20wRwYIKwYBBQUHMAKG O2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0NBQ2VydHMvRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290 Q0EuY3J0MIGBBgNVHR8EejB4MDqgOKA2hjRodHRwOi8vY3JsMy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGln aUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290Q0EuY3JsMDqgOKA2hjRodHRwOi8vY3JsNC5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20vRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290Q0EuY3JsMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQVABIrE5iymQftHt+i vlcNK2cCzTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBRF66Kv9JLLgjEtUYunpyGd823IDzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEAhGFOQR64dgQqtbbvj/JVhbldVv4KmObkvWWKfUAp0/yxXUX9OrgqWzNLJFzNubTk c61hXXatdDOKZtUjr0wfcm5F2XVAu6I7z41JL8BBsOIpo1E4Q1CZFKwzBjViiX13qVIH5Wwg V7aBum+8s8KU7XYCgNl8zoWoHOzHQ0pLsVfPcs7f9SU8yyJP/Z9S0TfLCLs4PuDVPm95Ca1b fDGzdzXD5GP5aAqYB+dGOHeE0j6XvAqgqKwlT0RukeHSWq9r7zAcjaNEQrMQiyP61+Y1dDes z+urWB/JiCP/NtQH6jRqR+qdlWyeKU9T7eMrlSBOKs+WYHr4LIDwlVLOKZaBYjCCA7cwggKf oAMCAQICEAzn4OUX2Eb+j+Vg/BvwMDkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIG A1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBSb290IENBMB4XDTA2MTExMDAwMDAwMFoXDTMx MTExMDAwMDAwMFowZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcG A1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBS b290IENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArQ4VzuRDgFyxh/O3YPlx EqWu3CaUiKr0zvUgOShYYAz4gNqpFZUyYTy1sSiEiorcnwoMgxd6j5Csiud5U1wxhCr2D5gy NnbM3t08qKLvavsh8lJh358g1x/isdn+GGTSEltf+VgYNbxHzaE2+Wt/1LA4PsEbw4wz2dgv GP4oD7Ong9bDbkTAYTWWFv5ZnIt2bdfxoksNK/8LctqeYNCOkDXGeFWHIKHP5W0KyEl8MZgz bCLph9AyWqK6E4IR7TkXnZk6cqHm+qTZ1Rcxda6FfSKuPwFGhvYoecix2uRXF8R+HA6wtJKm VrO9spftqqfwt8WoP5UW0P+hlusIXxh3TwIDAQABo2MwYTAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAYYwDwYD VR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8wHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAKIOvN/i7fDjcnN6 ZJS/93Jm2DLkQnVirofr8tXZ3lazn8zOFCi5DZdgXBJMWOTTPYNJRViXNWkaqEfqVsZ5qxLY Z4GE338JPJTmuCYsIL09syiJ91//IuKXhB/pZe+H4N/BZ0mzXeuyCSrrJu14vn0/K/O3JjVt X4kBtklbnwEFm6s9JcHMtn/C8W+GxvpkaOuBLZTrQrf6jB7dYvG+UGe3bL3z8R9rDDYHFn83 fKlbbXrxEkZgg9cnBL5Lzpe+w2cqaBHfgOcMM2a/Ew0UbvN/H2MQHvqNGyVtbI+lt2EBsdKj JqEQcZ2t4sP5w5lRtysHCM4u5lCyp/oKRS+i8PIxggH8MIIB+AIBATB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYT AlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20x ITAfBgNVBAMTGERpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EtMQIQAWTMIpQ+xsQK5p7ZnC+UfzAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoF0wIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFI2yzZJjfYwURU+2c0OM/u2ydawkMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMTAyMzE0NTI1MFowDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEACYjElUgaJTV91ioPQ+vysF6c6/Mu9Jp24KMcsBpFYiff5yCloIFP 0709GJEoJyeEU96H04OMi/AO6VAmmJFbFMEEDIuYL8KJaQ0xamovV2QU4w8nClKRIAr3Iw5Y zfxHtCNyCYVsGohW6D6YY3eMt51EqTiO0rg7VMzyQva4+LEJlmw6q+O/dCt/Z3AqWSPUpF7s 4t+VvXS3u6r4wNfidi8Im1QzMa5BO0i/Uwj2pFRVe6RTqgIMngQ1uonOO1OFTzjMBwDcWyNm cQ3ShJ1KgoqJX7DFPc1dxvZwuKg4+SaCF4UD2zRFdFR8GBPr6/wR/Lq5zVraUCtjWMbmYgHU vA== --B_3433823570_752751-- From bje@apnic.net Tue Oct 23 16:16:09 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 131CF1F0C8F for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:16:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.803 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eP8nEBqnJW49 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108BF1F0C3A for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dynamic185.apnic.net (dynamic185.apnic.net [203.119.42.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89D4B6850; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:16:03 +1000 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E164BA65-35CB-4B23-A1E0-68025829FE7A"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:16:03 +1000 Message-Id: <2562FCBF-0398-4734-949A-FAC065F08F05@apnic.net> References: To: Andy Newton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 23 Oct 2012 23:16:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E164BA65-35CB-4B23-A1E0-68025829FE7A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Andy, On 24/10/2012, at 12:05 AM, Andy Newton wrote: >>> Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query = it? >>> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. = Are >>> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? >>=20 >> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' >> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' >>=20 >> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' >> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' >=20 > =46rom what I can tell, the /e just redacts information. Regardless, = this > isn't the same thing as a language label. It is more akin to the = Accept > header in HTTP. I don't believe there's any information in the Japanese language version = that's not also in the English-only version, it's just stripping the = bilingual duplication. I could see this as a case for language = negotiation in the headers, or as a case for multiple language options = in the response, or a mix. Try querying nic.ad.jp for "help" and "help = /e" to see a starker contrast, but we don't do help responses in RDAP. The main point to note is that not only do the labels change (a = client-side issue for RDAP) but the contents are available in more than = one language. See also whois.kisa.kr responses, which have the full = response in Korean, then repeated in English. Byron --Apple-Mail=_E164BA65-35CB-4B23-A1E0-68025829FE7A Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEBjCCBAIw ggLqoAMCAQICCCoPITf60ZNDMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIw EAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNi YW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMB4XDTExMTEyODAxNTEzNloXDTEy MTEyNzAxNTEzNlowgZIxGTAXBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEBDAliamUtc3RhZmYxEjAQBgNVBAMMCWJqZS1z dGFmZjEOMAwGA1UEKgwFQnlyb24xETAPBgNVBAQMCEVsbGFjb3R0MQ8wDQYDVQQLDAZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVzdGFmZjCCASIwDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANVQo/BOmY5CCWNeAldlgoWZKOzIZpOsFzD6NB2oAErtclDu uiZsXfl+L97UOwUlhu1eGlY5gKuAhGcrEBvDgTT1eEr3vkdKILhJw78s5n8eLOWrmhPKBnW8gSn9 7MbAxVQx3V1/RpToKAF8cR4il03Z7mveaBQbaivM2jReHcgfJPt9w0qhTVZO2POLuVClRcExaNt1 h+QdMLa6VU5x7rJo9JFqjTAvJzMApW+WY/7oumR9+4a9ZGThlETI2b83XAMrrJ7DHm237Jskgl+X FGILIq8zOhNiAbhEg+gAyJ8bOzwwydDY+ggWQ466duZZq4wxmr1+YhxVf51v2R5MSicCAwEAAaN6 MHgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFIQXSivz3cLpaFy23DdhpGhyyo5pMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAU4D23klvuLqOyPnnbRaswQi8BS6wwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgHyMBgGA1UdEQQRMA+BDWJqZUBh cG5pYy5uZXQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAEk9zi8BTUEY4rqDGEIFDNIpmX/yS3fTah39Mele pV93sRsjqLy2G47vhhnkgSTEWV2jJOD7tjzjswxtWUL6KG36dUDVL3XbQ1OObxkiDJbqje4BoWrd a8/5PoIPC0hkSDXGoitvoXkL8Pd9x9Y+kyMlKo1C0lk5bCUG4yjk5wVLuSSm5m+KZ3+YVdPp6dKp C0DRhvFdsrz2zIOT/sWheCQO0HRU300UYngB/xoqc1KWH2dROIUhLqwtyoCQbQKQjW9C+JMMw2Ij vfVXJZGMWjbp5l8RQeUSJ+0vVJXJbIL6PfEsyQupUV3AJsSTRmtllqzCBCz2Abd14xyeqw0eJfwx ggMtMIIDKQIBATB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAU BgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYC Y2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBgzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMjEwMjMyMzE2MDRaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQM 2zCCZ2+vAoG/a/cJwv7IXIL4kjCBjwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGBMH8wczERMA8GA1UEAwwIc3RhZmYt Y2ExEjAQBgNVBAsMCVRlY2huaWNhbDEWMBQGA1UECgwNQVBOSUMgUHR5IEx0ZDERMA8GA1UEBwwI QnJpc2JhbmUxEjAQBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgJjYTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQVUCCCoPITf60ZNDMIGRBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBgaB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQB GRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBF1yPz/P2Tx/Ed huMZs6DnqEA2zbp84ROJVi1EbXp4C/rc1c0WyQhFw6FMEyTNYOZOHZ+Q77U7ts+y68nuywldJfzL qcAPm4XPvhWDOWT75LFtqjPuMWqapOu3Gmcn3zDI/tDGouk5YgXCmuMkpZPz7jY4bWGEJBPav1+N 1oT07nxoCssOgltDCINKESmfczxlwaL2YdBcv6xKuiIC3+R83y9EkGEca6cF1fstdK/s8y+XeYj2 6JhXpBVwi0ZRsDHlON55Uz1oUnH67kc3lqLkunf1BVQEg1tRTUpYrJNQ/uP4Wz+oM59VwM1OGsIk 7f8kmX99KlQfw5FSsMK9ohUeAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_E164BA65-35CB-4B23-A1E0-68025829FE7A-- From james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au Tue Oct 23 18:26:02 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 728F711E814E for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7FxEez-ePZuW for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.ausregistry.net.au (mx01.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.15.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B3611E8149 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au (HELO off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.1.3]) by iron01.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2012 12:25:57 +1100 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:25:23 +1100 From: James Mitchell To: Steve Sheng , Peter Koch , "weirds@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:25:53 +1100 Thread-Topic: [weirds] Internationalization Issues Thread-Index: Ac2xhnA3q5ey4U8LSvCYqoMRuZpYfg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 01:26:02 -0000 As a heads up, EPP does not provide mechanisms for clients to specify the language of contact registration data as it appears in the element with attribute type=3D"loc". Any work on internationalized registration data should consider the changes required to EPP interfaces to allow capture of language information. James On 24/10/12 1:52 AM, "Steve Sheng" wrote: >Hi Peter,=20 > > We discussed this issue extensively within ICANN community. > > The proposal is that users should be allowed to submit registration data >in his/her native language / script to the extent allowed by the >registrar. =20 > > In terms of which fields to internationalize, the proposed requirements >are:=20 > > - Domain Name: U-label and A-label > - Nameserver: U-label and A-label > - Registrar: US-ASCII > - Registrant Name: Local language with language-script tags (e.g. Using >tags as defined by RFC 5646) > - Registrant contact information: local language with language-script >tags > > One issues that is in active discussion within ICANN is in the case a >registrant submit information in his/her local language/script, whether >there should a requirement to translate and transliterate (into latin) >this information. The policy community is starting a policy development >process on that.=20 > > For more information, you could refer to the ICANN Final Report on >Internationalized Registration Data >(http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf), >and the policy body's approval of this report and initiation of relevant >policy work (Resolution No. 5 in >http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions/#201210). > > Hope this helps.=20 > >Steve > >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Koch >To: "weirds@ietf.org" >Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues > >>On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:30:38AM +1000, Byron Ellacott wrote: >> >>> The contents of fields such as remarks, names, and server notices may >>>all be in languages other than English. In some cases, the contents of >>>fields such as address may also be in a language other than English. >>>The field tag names will not be localized, and identifiers aren't in any >>>language, per se, of course. >> >>and we are sure that this is about language, not script or character set? >>What language tagging would be appropriate for your or my name? >> >>-Peter >>_______________________________________________ >>weirds mailing list >>weirds@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From kentaro@jprs.co.jp Tue Oct 23 19:59:05 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 A7DBE21F8A07 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:59:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2RIDbWSdD0sL for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:8:17::20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B351721F8861 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.8.32]) by off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9O2x1re005188 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:59:02 +0900 X-AuditID: ac120820-b7fd46d0000058b8-d0-50875976e8ed Received: from [127.0.0.1] (Unknown_Domain [172.19.24.216]) by off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C8.B3.22712.67957805; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:59:02 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <50875975.8090908@jprs.co.jp> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:59:01 +0900 From: Kentaro Mori User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWyRljihm5ZZHuAwdovRhbzu46zODB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY8+dhSwFX2Ur+q8UNzD2SHQxcnJICJhIrNs6hxHCFpO4cG89 WxcjF4eQwGFGiRmvXjGBJHgFNCVW/F7DCmKzCKhKvHy9A6yBTUBdYm7fHhYQW1QgWOLuhMdQ 9YISJ2c+AYuLCAhLLH75DswWFjCU2LC7kw3EFhKIkli3ailYPaeArcTnRR+YIY6QlHj7/hWY zSygI/Gu7wGULS+x/e0c5gmM/LOQrJiFpGwWkrIFjMyrGGXy09J0i1PzUopz0w0M9Uoq8/Wy CoqK9ZJB9CZGUNgJcSjsYJxxyuAQowAHoxIPr8KVtgAh1sSy4srcQ4ySHExKorw/ItoDhPiS 8lMqMxKLM+KLSnNSiw8xSnAwK4nwTr4LVM6bklhZlVqUD5OS5mBREuc9fnaHn5BAemJJanZq akFqEUxWhoNDSYK3D2SoYFFqempFWmZOCUKaiYMTZDgP0PCNIDW8xQWJucWZ6RD5U4ySUuK8 78OBEgIgiYzSPLjeV4ziQC8I89qBtPEAUwhc1yuggUxAA815WkEGliQipKQaGG06/2y8/F+u wlbwIu+GNcn3Dup8v5xW3frs/JFf//qDUuQ2Vod5hl7+ztTf/ODa1dSH/Xf4U24fjHtU8otP OHttXHbZyY/vmiwvh1bP5PRY9+c948H1Bq4l+2LlGXS78g59unK/3il1nmWefnaGucp8zQ/R 5qnMOi5NbPY5DuHXVn/c7+IupMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAEYekEveAgAA Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 02:59:05 -0000 Byron-san and folks, I'm Kentaro Mori from JPRS. (sorry for late reply) For Whois, JPRS collects English data as well as native (Japanese) one at the time registrant applies to .JP domain name registration. Additionally, the English data doesn't cover all of Japanese data, e.g., it is partial. ISO-2022-JP as character-set was a normal choice when JPRS (more correctly, JPNIC at that time) started Whois service, though we may have alternative choice such as UTF-8 now. --Kentaro (2012/10/22 9:56), Byron Ellacott wrote: > > On 19/10/2012, at 9:33 PM, Andy Newton wrote: > >> On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >> >>> Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? >>> Auto-translate? > > Murray has the right sense of what I meant, for both of these. > >>> Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >>> possible via a Vary header? >> >> That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple language >> tags in the response. > > Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 > suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with "possible > considerations" of multiple language tags. > > But, with this point, what I'm suggesting is that the user of a particular > client likely has one or a few preferred languages, which they could > potentially indicate to the server, in the event that the server has multiple > translations. This would be applicable for mixed language responses as > well as single language responses, since it only indicates a client preference, > not a strict requirement. > > My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever mechanisms > or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, > and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future operators. > I think there's a use case for language preference indication, as per below, > and I think Ning is suggesting a use case for tagging the language of an > entire response, inline in the response. What are your (collective "your") > thoughts on how reasonable these use cases are? > >>> Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, but >>> there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, varying) >>> ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple language >>> options available for many response fields. >> >> Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query it? >> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. Are >> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? > > $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' > $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' > > $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' > $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' > > The data labels are sometimes translated, sometimes not. In the native > language responses, there's often an English translation. JPRS includes > an English help/info block even for the native language response. I don't > know for sure if they collect the information in multiple languages, though > I think they do - any JPRS or JPNIC operators on the list to confirm? > Character set is ISO-2022-JP. > > I don't know if there are other services with such a switch mechanism, > either - we're all aware of how hard it is to find out what's actually done > out there on port 43 :-) - but for another comparison whois.kisa.kr returns > both native and english output, at least for "kisa.kr". Character set is > EUC-KR. > > Byron > > > > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From okadams@nic.ad.jp Tue Oct 23 22:09:47 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 55F2021F8CC1 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:09:47 -0700 (PDT) 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, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GefP03nAbXqo for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dist3.nic.ad.jp (dist3.nic.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:dc2:1000:2004::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BD921F8C9F for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dist3.nic.ad.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FAA81F00C4; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:09:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from mbox2.nic.ad.jp (mbox2.nic.ad.jp [10.10.10.1]) by dist3.nic.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3655D1F00BB; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:09:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from [10.10.11.157] (k11-pc157.nic.ad.jp [10.10.11.157]) by mbox2.nic.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E84C158003F; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:09:43 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <50877817.9060805@nic.ad.jp> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:09:43 +0900 From: MasaYUKI Okada User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kentaro Mori , weirds@ietf.org References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <50875975.8090908@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <50875975.8090908@jprs.co.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 05:09:47 -0000 Byron-san, I'm Masayuki Okada at JPNIC. Our WHOIS system(whois.nic.ad.jp:43) will response English(ASCII) if '/e' is put into the character of the last of an input. By default, it answers in Japanese(ISO-2022-JP). About main registration records, JPNIC are collecting both Japanese and English as an mandantory. just for reference: - How to use JPNIC WHOIS - http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/ -- Masayuki Okada JPNIC (2012/10/24 11:59), Kentaro Mori wrote: > Byron-san and folks, > > I'm Kentaro Mori from JPRS. > (sorry for late reply) > > For Whois, JPRS collects English data as well as native (Japanese) one > at the time registrant applies to .JP domain name registration. > Additionally, the English data doesn't cover all of Japanese data, > e.g., it is partial. > ISO-2022-JP as character-set was a normal choice when JPRS (more > correctly, JPNIC at that time) started Whois service, though we may have > alternative choice such as UTF-8 now. > > --Kentaro > > (2012/10/22 9:56), Byron Ellacott wrote: >> >> On 19/10/2012, at 9:33 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >> >>> On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >>> >>>> Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? >>>> Auto-translate? >> >> Murray has the right sense of what I meant, for both of these. >> >>>> Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >>>> possible via a Vary header? >>> >>> That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple language >>> tags in the response. >> >> Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 >> suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with "possible >> considerations" of multiple language tags. >> >> But, with this point, what I'm suggesting is that the user of a particular >> client likely has one or a few preferred languages, which they could >> potentially indicate to the server, in the event that the server has multiple >> translations. This would be applicable for mixed language responses as >> well as single language responses, since it only indicates a client preference, >> not a strict requirement. >> >> My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever mechanisms >> or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, >> and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future operators. >> I think there's a use case for language preference indication, as per below, >> and I think Ning is suggesting a use case for tagging the language of an >> entire response, inline in the response. What are your (collective "your") >> thoughts on how reasonable these use cases are? >> >>>> Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, but >>>> there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, varying) >>>> ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple language >>>> options available for many response fields. >>> >>> Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query it? >>> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. Are >>> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? >> >> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' >> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' >> >> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' >> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' >> >> The data labels are sometimes translated, sometimes not. In the native >> language responses, there's often an English translation. JPRS includes >> an English help/info block even for the native language response. I don't >> know for sure if they collect the information in multiple languages, though >> I think they do - any JPRS or JPNIC operators on the list to confirm? >> Character set is ISO-2022-JP. >> >> I don't know if there are other services with such a switch mechanism, >> either - we're all aware of how hard it is to find out what's actually done >> out there on port 43 :-) - but for another comparison whois.kisa.kr returns >> both native and english output, at least for "kisa.kr". Character set is >> EUC-KR. >> >> Byron >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bje@apnic.net Tue Oct 23 22:13:02 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 674BD21F8CC9 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:13:02 -0700 (PDT) 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, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIkvK04Umg5k for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC9C21F8CCA for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:819d:25c8:1fc:5926] (unknown [IPv6:2001:dc0:a000:4:819d:25c8:1fc:5926]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FF1B6850; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:12:58 +1000 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_75993298-E671-4CD4-ACF5-5E562136562C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Byron Ellacott In-Reply-To: <50877817.9060805@nic.ad.jp> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:12:58 +1000 Message-Id: <1045CB70-C1E9-48F9-9E3C-6F9032581650@apnic.net> References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <50875975.8090908@jprs.co.jp> <50877817.9060805@nic.ad.jp> To: MasaYUKI Okada X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 05:13:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_75993298-E671-4CD4-ACF5-5E562136562C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thank you both for your input. If you are intending to implement a = weirds service down the line, what would be your expectations on = language support in the protocol? Byron On 24/10/2012, at 3:09 PM, MasaYUKI Okada wrote: > Byron-san, >=20 > I'm Masayuki Okada at JPNIC. >=20 > Our WHOIS system(whois.nic.ad.jp:43) will response English(ASCII) > if '/e' is put into the character of the last of an input.=20 >=20 > By default, it answers in Japanese(ISO-2022-JP).=20 >=20 > About main registration records, JPNIC are collecting both Japanese=20 > and English as an mandantory. >=20 > just for reference: > - How to use JPNIC WHOIS -=20 > http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/ >=20 > -- > Masayuki Okada > JPNIC >=20 > (2012/10/24 11:59), Kentaro Mori wrote: >> Byron-san and folks, >>=20 >> I'm Kentaro Mori from JPRS. >> (sorry for late reply) >>=20 >> For Whois, JPRS collects English data as well as native (Japanese) = one >> at the time registrant applies to .JP domain name registration. >> Additionally, the English data doesn't cover all of Japanese data, >> e.g., it is partial. >> ISO-2022-JP as character-set was a normal choice when JPRS (more >> correctly, JPNIC at that time) started Whois service, though we may = have >> alternative choice such as UTF-8 now. >>=20 >> --Kentaro >>=20 >> (2012/10/22 9:56), Byron Ellacott wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 19/10/2012, at 9:33 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? >>>>> Auto-translate? >>>=20 >>> Murray has the right sense of what I meant, for both of these. >>>=20 >>>>> Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated = as >>>>> possible via a Vary header? >>>>=20 >>>> That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple = language >>>> tags in the response. >>>=20 >>> Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 >>> suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with = "possible >>> considerations" of multiple language tags. >>>=20 >>> But, with this point, what I'm suggesting is that the user of a = particular >>> client likely has one or a few preferred languages, which they could >>> potentially indicate to the server, in the event that the server has = multiple >>> translations. This would be applicable for mixed language responses = as >>> well as single language responses, since it only indicates a client = preference, >>> not a strict requirement. >>>=20 >>> My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever = mechanisms >>> or systems indicate language or language preference need to be = optional, >>> and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future = operators. >>> I think there's a use case for language preference indication, as = per below, >>> and I think Ning is suggesting a use case for tagging the language = of an >>> entire response, inline in the response. What are your (collective = "your") >>> thoughts on how reasonable these use cases are? >>>=20 >>>>> Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages = meaningfully, but >>>>> there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, = varying) >>>>> ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple = language >>>>> options available for many response fields. >>>>=20 >>>> Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query = it? >>>> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. = Are >>>> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? >>>=20 >>> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' >>> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' >>>=20 >>> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' >>> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' >>>=20 >>> The data labels are sometimes translated, sometimes not. In the = native >>> language responses, there's often an English translation. JPRS = includes >>> an English help/info block even for the native language response. I = don't >>> know for sure if they collect the information in multiple languages, = though >>> I think they do - any JPRS or JPNIC operators on the list to = confirm? >>> Character set is ISO-2022-JP. >>>=20 >>> I don't know if there are other services with such a switch = mechanism, >>> either - we're all aware of how hard it is to find out what's = actually done >>> out there on port 43 :-) - but for another comparison whois.kisa.kr = returns >>> both native and english output, at least for "kisa.kr". Character = set is >>> EUC-KR. >>>=20 >>> Byron >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> weirds mailing list >>> weirds@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds --=20 Byron Ellacott email: bje@apnic.net Technical Director, APNIC sip: bje@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary. --Apple-Mail=_75993298-E671-4CD4-ACF5-5E562136562C Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEBjCCBAIw ggLqoAMCAQICCCoPITf60ZNDMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIw EAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNi YW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVMB4XDTExMTEyODAxNTEzNloXDTEy MTEyNzAxNTEzNlowgZIxGTAXBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEBDAliamUtc3RhZmYxEjAQBgNVBAMMCWJqZS1z dGFmZjEOMAwGA1UEKgwFQnlyb24xETAPBgNVBAQMCEVsbGFjb3R0MQ8wDQYDVQQLDAZQZW9wbGUx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVzdGFmZjCCASIwDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANVQo/BOmY5CCWNeAldlgoWZKOzIZpOsFzD6NB2oAErtclDu uiZsXfl+L97UOwUlhu1eGlY5gKuAhGcrEBvDgTT1eEr3vkdKILhJw78s5n8eLOWrmhPKBnW8gSn9 7MbAxVQx3V1/RpToKAF8cR4il03Z7mveaBQbaivM2jReHcgfJPt9w0qhTVZO2POLuVClRcExaNt1 h+QdMLa6VU5x7rJo9JFqjTAvJzMApW+WY/7oumR9+4a9ZGThlETI2b83XAMrrJ7DHm237Jskgl+X FGILIq8zOhNiAbhEg+gAyJ8bOzwwydDY+ggWQ466duZZq4wxmr1+YhxVf51v2R5MSicCAwEAAaN6 MHgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFIQXSivz3cLpaFy23DdhpGhyyo5pMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAU4D23klvuLqOyPnnbRaswQi8BS6wwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgHyMBgGA1UdEQQRMA+BDWJqZUBh cG5pYy5uZXQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAEk9zi8BTUEY4rqDGEIFDNIpmX/yS3fTah39Mele pV93sRsjqLy2G47vhhnkgSTEWV2jJOD7tjzjswxtWUL6KG36dUDVL3XbQ1OObxkiDJbqje4BoWrd a8/5PoIPC0hkSDXGoitvoXkL8Pd9x9Y+kyMlKo1C0lk5bCUG4yjk5wVLuSSm5m+KZ3+YVdPp6dKp C0DRhvFdsrz2zIOT/sWheCQO0HRU300UYngB/xoqc1KWH2dROIUhLqwtyoCQbQKQjW9C+JMMw2Ij vfVXJZGMWjbp5l8RQeUSJ+0vVJXJbIL6PfEsyQupUV3AJsSTRmtllqzCBCz2Abd14xyeqw0eJfwx ggMtMIIDKQIBATB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwxFjAU BgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYC Y2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBgzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMjEwMjQwNTEyNThaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBTa taRfoGjmDsKR2SZXlxz24iDDZTCBjwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGBMH8wczERMA8GA1UEAwwIc3RhZmYt Y2ExEjAQBgNVBAsMCVRlY2huaWNhbDEWMBQGA1UECgwNQVBOSUMgUHR5IEx0ZDERMA8GA1UEBwwI QnJpc2JhbmUxEjAQBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgJjYTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQVUCCCoPITf60ZNDMIGRBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBgaB/MHMxETAPBgNVBAMMCHN0YWZmLWNhMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlUZWNobmljYWwx FjAUBgNVBAoMDUFQTklDIFB0eSBMdGQxETAPBgNVBAcMCEJyaXNiYW5lMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQB GRYCY2ExCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFVAggqDyE3+tGTQzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQDJNlI9na1uwIQz fc+ePiKrQ6kGwxtSoOyRkC0p5iLoHJCkyCXXbajrOb1lO27okqdp9JadRPmOVqTrhD0Ejp49BvXs ZJf3oXLLT8yKp+jGd1ZXWiDhRjhUhYNNSRAcInvuxoZEyQ/2SlRT7Nz3aXZR8YmzJdtpV9AEnWbP ZTz6kuQbFgjfxtiWmJj9jBPoMp/NdeybcSX5ELLXjQ2vf4M3GWUQuahSPJ2h1JcALQwVptmWetnT yR6vmeLTU8+t0+kT6iAJ9ZUucyFEeQ0STl3b1S8pi3BT9BCE5wsOSQr0u+UXk3/AXT9nGnryIs2X XftiLmI5MY9IcLyjfxUUML4ZAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_75993298-E671-4CD4-ACF5-5E562136562C-- From kentaro@jprs.co.jp Wed Oct 24 03:01:20 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 932DD21F8A6B for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:01:20 -0700 (PDT) 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=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTm9mg+oZoOr for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:8:17::20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4668621F8A6A for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.8.32]) by off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9OA1Cd4030403; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:01:12 +0900 X-AuditID: ac120820-b7fd46d0000058b8-07-5087bc68e82d Received: from [127.0.0.1] (Unknown_Domain [172.19.24.216]) by off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id A3.95.22712.86CB7805; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:01:12 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5087BC68.5040908@jprs.co.jp> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:01:12 +0900 From: Kentaro Mori User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Byron Ellacott References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <50875975.8090908@jprs.co.jp> <50877817.9060805@nic.ad.jp> <1045CB70-C1E9-48F9-9E3C-6F9032581650@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: <1045CB70-C1E9-48F9-9E3C-6F9032581650@apnic.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWyRljihm7GnvYAg2VvlSz+Tv3AZDFr+Ucm i/ldx1kcmD0mntrA7rFkyU8mj+2nnrIFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZbz9sZal4LZJxf2JC5kb GJu0uxg5OSQETCSaJs9lgbDFJC7cW88GYgsJHGaUOHTPEsTmFdCU2HZ9MiOIzSKgKnFg0k52 EJtNQF1ibt8esF5RgWCJuxMeM0HUC0qcnPkEKM7BISKgJDHlnB9ImFnAXOLQiYlg44UFDCU2 7O4EsrmAVh1jlDiw/hrYTE4BW4lXE2YzQtwjKfH2/StmiGYdiXd9D6BseYntb+cwT2AUmIVk 3SwkZbOQlC1gZF7FKJOflqZbnJqXUpybbmCoV1KZr5dVUFSslwyiNzGCwlaIQ2EH44xTBocY BTgYlXh4Fa60BQixJpYVV+YeYpTkYFIS5V2/oz1AiC8pP6UyI7E4I76oNCe1+BCjBAezkgjv k1VAOd6UxMqq1KJ8mJQ0B4uSOO/xszv8hATSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLIyHBxKEryWu4EaBYtS01Mr 0jJzShDSTBycIMN5gIZ7gtTwFhck5hZnpkPkTzFKSonzpoEkBEASGaV5cL2vGMWBXhDm1QbJ 8gBTEFzXK6CBTEADzXlaQQaWJCKkpBoYpardt9T4f5z4eDH/pAlHfHleZEaU7Lz4XuGXveiS pNPLp6nYJ35U/S24J1Rz+oKMvcwVcx+2BpjEmkS3fTuZr9my/yNL3MfNWrvz3dTXT8tb3Hbp gNiSo05LGR4k+5ctFJ0hceCn3prVH+8qLbz360jQBd5L2dJzvv+J+h1pFyXqemHVv8b0ECWW 4oxEQy3mouJEAOvUx6z+AgAA Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 10:01:20 -0000 Byron-san; (2012/10/24 14:12), Byron Ellacott wrote: > Thank you both for your input. If you are intending to implement a weirds service down the line, what would be your expectations on language support in the protocol? 'My current' expectations on language support are like follows: (Frankly saying, I haven't completely caught up on the context/concept of the protocol, so if they won't make sense for your arguments sorry for that, and there is a possibility that I change my mind as my understanding develops) - default language (or character code) specification feature In a case client has no ability to specify which language it prefers, it would be not so good for server to return data of all language it supports other than to return data by default language, as I believe vast majority of whois.jprs.jp user won't expect to obtain data by 'both of Japanese and English' or 'English only' (so you would be a very rare user :) ; and I wonder this is a protocol stuff or not? - language (or character code) tag for each element There is a possibility some element has data by multiple languages (such as Japanese and English) and the other element has data by a single language (such as Japanese). If language tag is for a set of elements, client will have no clue for determining which element of one language corresponds to which element of other language. - character code specification feature In Japan, sometimes client software encounters failure in automatic judgment of encoding character code such as between ISO-2022-JP and Shift-JIS, so apparent indication of encoding by server will be welcomed. Thanks for questioning, Kentaro > > Byron > > On 24/10/2012, at 3:09 PM, MasaYUKI Okada wrote: > >> Byron-san, >> >> I'm Masayuki Okada at JPNIC. >> >> Our WHOIS system(whois.nic.ad.jp:43) will response English(ASCII) >> if '/e' is put into the character of the last of an input. >> >> By default, it answers in Japanese(ISO-2022-JP). >> >> About main registration records, JPNIC are collecting both Japanese >> and English as an mandantory. >> >> just for reference: >> - How to use JPNIC WHOIS - >> http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/ >> >> -- >> Masayuki Okada >> JPNIC >> >> (2012/10/24 11:59), Kentaro Mori wrote: >>> Byron-san and folks, >>> >>> I'm Kentaro Mori from JPRS. >>> (sorry for late reply) >>> >>> For Whois, JPRS collects English data as well as native (Japanese) one >>> at the time registrant applies to .JP domain name registration. >>> Additionally, the English data doesn't cover all of Japanese data, >>> e.g., it is partial. >>> ISO-2022-JP as character-set was a normal choice when JPRS (more >>> correctly, JPNIC at that time) started Whois service, though we may have >>> alternative choice such as UTF-8 now. >>> >>> --Kentaro >>> >>> (2012/10/22 9:56), Byron Ellacott wrote: >>>> >>>> On 19/10/2012, at 9:33 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? >>>>>> Auto-translate? >>>> >>>> Murray has the right sense of what I meant, for both of these. >>>> >>>>>> Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >>>>>> possible via a Vary header? >>>>> >>>>> That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple language >>>>> tags in the response. >>>> >>>> Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 >>>> suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with "possible >>>> considerations" of multiple language tags. >>>> >>>> But, with this point, what I'm suggesting is that the user of a particular >>>> client likely has one or a few preferred languages, which they could >>>> potentially indicate to the server, in the event that the server has multiple >>>> translations. This would be applicable for mixed language responses as >>>> well as single language responses, since it only indicates a client preference, >>>> not a strict requirement. >>>> >>>> My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever mechanisms >>>> or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, >>>> and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future operators. >>>> I think there's a use case for language preference indication, as per below, >>>> and I think Ning is suggesting a use case for tagging the language of an >>>> entire response, inline in the response. What are your (collective "your") >>>> thoughts on how reasonable these use cases are? >>>> >>>>>> Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, but >>>>>> there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, varying) >>>>>> ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple language >>>>>> options available for many response fields. >>>>> >>>>> Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query it? >>>>> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. Are >>>>> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? >>>> >>>> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' >>>> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' >>>> >>>> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' >>>> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' >>>> >>>> The data labels are sometimes translated, sometimes not. In the native >>>> language responses, there's often an English translation. JPRS includes >>>> an English help/info block even for the native language response. I don't >>>> know for sure if they collect the information in multiple languages, though >>>> I think they do - any JPRS or JPNIC operators on the list to confirm? >>>> Character set is ISO-2022-JP. >>>> >>>> I don't know if there are other services with such a switch mechanism, >>>> either - we're all aware of how hard it is to find out what's actually done >>>> out there on port 43 :-) - but for another comparison whois.kisa.kr returns >>>> both native and english output, at least for "kisa.kr". Character set is >>>> EUC-KR. >>>> >>>> Byron >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> weirds mailing list >> weirds@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From superuser@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 08:21:17 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 4D3CE21F8B7C for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0-WcS623WnLA for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9862B21F8B75 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so1285714lbo.31 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yxY5c6c91+qbBYZUYn6CfQ4lKtDTX3VOhhLU17vhBRs=; b=b3Io2Gt33uPeL1ozFk+qdKI1fUxytyEK0pBjonSssrOLzHlHeNaqE7vOK6z29TdAho aVNbTX8CSkdrU1hbJ9zKjqlaEy3+lazquZHYspAGNVmFHI55WVlhp9z/zepe/tuK85Cr zYnWbKHBGo9/lKvxjXLGGN8nvZPtoRJ0TYRqKp+g+YjWUseh/SggTPr0S3/SkCxAbW2I +A4Lxq0VpIrgQvRHpdQGULdNCBh0dIFw2OY7fKjvGznHHzZHCLJYgNtyvblHECyVmQUc +6uTPHMvrLeHIEt6T+vC4PCRI5SuF1SIiHGJ1bgt6M08zv3fuwGPQNvXRBtgzz9wJmao BKOw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.124.201 with SMTP id mk9mr14946451lab.33.1351092076278; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:21:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] Preliminary agendas due today X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 15:21:17 -0000 The deadline for submitting preliminary agendas for working group meetings is today. If you would like to request a time slot for our meeting in November, please email weirds-chairs@tools.ietf.org ASAP. If you have already sent a request but haven't heard back yet, feel free to send us a reminder. -MSK, co-chair From carlosm3011@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 09:25:33 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 93C4C21F860C for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bpdx5ijb0ADd for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ye0-f172.google.com (mail-ye0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7A821F85F3 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ye0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l13so114091yen.31 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:25:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X4J12yTpHMuRiMddvOtorKYGtPZFcHTbxvv1jsx1fpE=; b=qksUWJumwKgYY7wMdoudDRzVX299JZUMXIpLJahKch44VTQ7/Dk+4sB5uYn7D9iLPJ KXWaKWTTMgqPfYAumbUHagIZic1+uN7Ro6tu8+dWjkg5QKpH18FkklZcsbvV/FQcvdls meRcEQ9UaaNd8OarOcuWHR4yn39rAQTGY3DgnBaV+kagwtS4rF50SrIQvEsxyh5RKFZl uFaozNny8AETSHdOSik/XZZjkawSoCzYDGq3GXTspeF5QRM+3tr43KU5S6xzPsN3xT4x DEyYuxQYKFOXRitocvS0bJTRnoh0E7CtjpIEkzKE5HQg5CbCNQ7J9i/Y7o52lifK103g fTfw== Received: by 10.236.87.208 with SMTP id y56mr16398609yhe.9.1351095932314; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from europa.local ([200.7.87.205]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b46sm15213797yhn.5.2012.10.24.09.25.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50881677.1010600@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:25:27 -0200 From: "Carlos M. Martinez" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Preliminary agendas due today X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:33 -0000 Hello Murray, I'd like to have a 5 - 10' slot to discuss the future of the redirects draft. cheers! ~Carlos On 10/24/12 1:21 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > The deadline for submitting preliminary agendas for working group > meetings is today. If you would like to request a time slot for our > meeting in November, please email weirds-chairs@tools.ietf.org ASAP. > If you have already sent a request but haven't heard back yet, feel > free to send us a reminder. > > -MSK, co-chair > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From okadams@nic.ad.jp Wed Oct 24 23:19:28 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 0715821E803A for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:19:28 -0700 (PDT) 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, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0RLfVLl62R9C for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dist3.nic.ad.jp (dist3.nic.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:dc2:1000:2004::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A209921E8039 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dist3.nic.ad.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 382211F00BE; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:19:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from mbox2.nic.ad.jp (mbox2.nic.ad.jp [10.10.10.1]) by dist3.nic.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E91D1F00BD; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:19:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from [10.10.11.157] (k11-pc157.nic.ad.jp [10.10.11.157]) by mbox2.nic.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680561580011; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:19:23 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5088D9EA.80409@nic.ad.jp> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:19:22 +0900 From: MasaYUKI Okada User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Byron Ellacott References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <50875975.8090908@jprs.co.jp> <50877817.9060805@nic.ad.jp> <1045CB70-C1E9-48F9-9E3C-6F9032581650@apnic.net> <5087BC68.5040908@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <5087BC68.5040908@jprs.co.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 25 Oct 2012 06:19:28 -0000 Byron-san, This is only my opinion. My expectations on language support as this time is follow line: (There is no difference of opinion with the Kentaro-san too.) - Specified response code at the time of inquiry Now we are changing the response by the end of the '/e' string. It may be sufficient to give the '/e' string to the end of the inquiry also the protocol under discussion(draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00??) now. However, anticipation of standardization, should not an adhoc approach like this '/e' might be good for us. It may be able to specify the response code when whois queried. Thank you for the question. -- Masayuki Okada JPNIC (2012/10/24 19:01), Kentaro Mori wrote: > Byron-san; > > (2012/10/24 14:12), Byron Ellacott wrote: >> Thank you both for your input. If you are intending to implement a weirds service down the line, what would be your expectations on language support in the protocol? > > 'My current' expectations on language support are like follows: > (Frankly saying, I haven't completely caught up on the context/concept > of the protocol, so if they won't make sense for your arguments sorry > for that, and there is a possibility that I change my mind as my > understanding develops) > > - default language (or character code) specification feature > In a case client has no ability to specify which language it prefers, > it would be not so good for server to return data of all language it > supports other than to return data by default language, as I believe > vast majority of whois.jprs.jp user won't expect to obtain data by 'both > of Japanese and English' or 'English only' (so you would be a very rare > user :) > ; and I wonder this is a protocol stuff or not? > > - language (or character code) tag for each element > There is a possibility some element has data by multiple languages (such > as Japanese and English) and the other element has data by a single > language (such as Japanese). If language tag is for a set of elements, > client will have no clue for determining which element of one language > corresponds to which element of other language. > > - character code specification feature > In Japan, sometimes client software encounters failure in automatic > judgment of encoding character code such as between ISO-2022-JP and > Shift-JIS, so apparent indication of encoding by server will be welcomed. > > Thanks for questioning, > > Kentaro > >> >> Byron >> >> On 24/10/2012, at 3:09 PM, MasaYUKI Okada wrote: >> >>> Byron-san, >>> >>> I'm Masayuki Okada at JPNIC. >>> >>> Our WHOIS system(whois.nic.ad.jp:43) will response English(ASCII) >>> if '/e' is put into the character of the last of an input. >>> >>> By default, it answers in Japanese(ISO-2022-JP). >>> >>> About main registration records, JPNIC are collecting both Japanese >>> and English as an mandantory. >>> >>> just for reference: >>> - How to use JPNIC WHOIS - >>> http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/ >>> >>> -- >>> Masayuki Okada >>> JPNIC >>> >>> (2012/10/24 11:59), Kentaro Mori wrote: >>>> Byron-san and folks, >>>> >>>> I'm Kentaro Mori from JPRS. >>>> (sorry for late reply) >>>> >>>> For Whois, JPRS collects English data as well as native (Japanese) one >>>> at the time registrant applies to .JP domain name registration. >>>> Additionally, the English data doesn't cover all of Japanese data, >>>> e.g., it is partial. >>>> ISO-2022-JP as character-set was a normal choice when JPRS (more >>>> correctly, JPNIC at that time) started Whois service, though we may have >>>> alternative choice such as UTF-8 now. >>>> >>>> --Kentaro >>>> >>>> (2012/10/22 9:56), Byron Ellacott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 19/10/2012, at 9:33 PM, Andy Newton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/18/12 8:40 PM, "Byron Ellacott" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Indicate to the end user that it's not a native language? >>>>>>> Auto-translate? >>>>> >>>>> Murray has the right sense of what I meant, for both of these. >>>>> >>>>>>> Negotiate for native language with Accepts-Language, if indicated as >>>>>>> possible via a Vary header? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's HTTP layer stuff. We're talking about embedding multiple language >>>>>> tags in the response. >>>>> >>>>> Are we? I thought draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-01 sect. 7.3 >>>>> suggested a single language tag for the entire response, with "possible >>>>> considerations" of multiple language tags. >>>>> >>>>> But, with this point, what I'm suggesting is that the user of a particular >>>>> client likely has one or a few preferred languages, which they could >>>>> potentially indicate to the server, in the event that the server has multiple >>>>> translations. This would be applicable for mixed language responses as >>>>> well as single language responses, since it only indicates a client preference, >>>>> not a strict requirement. >>>>> >>>>> My primary perspective on this entire subject is that whatever mechanisms >>>>> or systems indicate language or language preference need to be optional, >>>>> and should support reasonable use cases for current or likely future operators. >>>>> I think there's a use case for language preference indication, as per below, >>>>> and I think Ning is suggesting a use case for tagging the language of an >>>>> entire response, inline in the response. What are your (collective "your") >>>>> thoughts on how reasonable these use cases are? >>>>> >>>>>>> Some RDAP services will not support multiple languages meaningfully, but >>>>>>> there are existing whois services that provide (non-standard, varying) >>>>>>> ways to indicate a preferred language on query, with multiple language >>>>>>> options available for many response fields. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you provide an example of one of these services so we can query it? >>>>>> That would go a long way in helping shape this need, I would think. Are >>>>>> there registries that collect contact data in multiple languages? >>>>> >>>>> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157' >>>>> $ whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp -- 'NET 113.32.19.157 /e' >>>>> >>>>> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp' >>>>> $ whois -h whois.jprs.jp -- 'jprs.jp /e' >>>>> >>>>> The data labels are sometimes translated, sometimes not. In the native >>>>> language responses, there's often an English translation. JPRS includes >>>>> an English help/info block even for the native language response. I don't >>>>> know for sure if they collect the information in multiple languages, though >>>>> I think they do - any JPRS or JPNIC operators on the list to confirm? >>>>> Character set is ISO-2022-JP. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if there are other services with such a switch mechanism, >>>>> either - we're all aware of how hard it is to find out what's actually done >>>>> out there on port 43 :-) - but for another comparison whois.kisa.kr returns >>>>> both native and english output, at least for "kisa.kr". Character set is >>>>> EUC-KR. >>>>> >>>>> Byron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> weirds mailing list >>> weirds@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >> > > > From sanz@denic.de Thu Oct 25 00:46:25 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 B2EDA21F8928 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:46:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oTKO9qOzVL3e for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0DA21F8914 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from notes1.fra2.osl.denic.de (notes1.fra2.osl.denic.de [10.122.50.48]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TRI90-0003T0-TE; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:46:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-KeepSent: 3D6E99DC:4C525D93-C1257AA2:002A74A4; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP1 Septem 15, 2011 From: Marcos Sanz Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:46:13 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes/Denic at 25.10.2012 09:46:21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 25 Oct 2012 07:46:25 -0000 > > I haven't been able to find any requirements for non-repudiation > services. In the interest of clarity it may help to repeat the > definition of "non-repudiation service" from RFC 4949: > > > > "A security service that provide protection against false denial > of involvement in an association (especially a communication > association that transfers data)." > > > > Digital signatures are often used to provide this service. Does > anyone know of any requirements for signed queries or signed responses? > > > > Not specifically. We get that property for free if the request has > been secured by TLS (i.e., https), Unfortunately TLS/SSL does not provide with the non-repudiaton property. Best regards, Marcos From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Oct 25 01:10:10 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 1F98B21F89B6 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iDHrAjwNwclN for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E63021F867E for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:09:56 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:09:49 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Byron Ellacott'" References: <6C6109C6-0FA3-40A0-9562-A8F55F178003@apnic.net> <20121022114444.GH9485@x28.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:09:25 +0800 Message-ID: <006201cdb288$0c935150$25b9f3f0$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJvYKxMkB37pEbfJmHdkqzs7NY0zAG6YMylAeZVuOEBPjQB2JZe99Kw Content-Language: zh-cn Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Internationalization Issues X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 25 Oct 2012 08:10:10 -0000 Hi Byron and all, > Speaking as an operator, I will not take advantage of any language = tagging > features in the protocol, because here at APNIC we don't have any > meta-information about language in our registration data. CNNIC may - = Ning > can speak to this - and both JPRS and KISA likely may as well, judging = by their > port 43 services. The current Whois system in CNNIC supports IDNs query through either = U-labels or A-labels. Furthermore, the system also supports displays of = U-label, A-label and variant domain names of the queried domain. As for = registration information, CNNIC accepts information in either English or = Chinese. The Whois system adopts UTF-8 encoding format and display the = information according to users=E2=80=99 input, either in English or = Chinese. So, a response from our Whois system may contain data in two = languages (English and Chinese). IMHO, there may be two potential use cases which may make sense. 1. Query with language tags I propose this use case based on Byron's email [1]. If a registry = supports registration information in multiple languages or has multiple = translations, language tags can be added into query as language = preference indication, such as = http://example.com/domain/test.com?lang=3Dzh-cn or in the HTTP header. = The Whois server may try to return the response in user's preferred = language. If a user queries with a language tag which is not supported = by the server, the server may return the response in its default = language or an alert message. Based on the practices of JP and KR, I think this use case is reasonable = to be considered by us. 2. Response with language tags If a response from a Whois server contains i18n data, I think one or = multiple language tags within the response may help the user better = understand the response content, especially when the user is not = familiar with the language(s) used in the response. This use case sounds reasonable. I'm still not yet. I wonder if you guys = think it's useful to indicate the language used by the response data for = users. In other words, if you see "=D9=85=D8=B1=DA=A9=D8=B2 = =D8=A7=D8=B7=D9=84=D8=A7=D8=B9=D8=A7=D8=AA =D8=B4=D8=A8=DA=A9=D9=87 = =D8=A7=DB=8C=D9=86=D8=AA=D8=B1=D9=86=D8=AA =DA=86=DB=8C=D9=86" from one = Whois reponse, do you hope there would be a corresponding language tag = to tell you this info is in Farsi? I notice that Google translation service can auto-detect languages for = users. So I wonder if the second use case needs to be considered by = WEIRDS. BTW, if the language tags would be accepted by WEIRDS, I also think we = should consider whether we need to correspondingly extend EPP protocols = [2]. References: [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01743.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01765.html=20 Cheers, Ning From jaap@NLnetLabs.nl Sat Oct 27 02:07:34 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 3DE0221F84A9 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:07:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IB-5mV1d0Qpi for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bela.nlnetlabs.nl (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1:222:4dff:fe55:4ccb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6DC21F84AD for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NLnetLabs.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bela.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9R97Pp2040186 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:07:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@NLnetLabs.nl) Message-Id: <201210270907.q9R97Pp2040186@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> To: weirds@ietf.org Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:07:25 +0200 From: Jaap Akkerhuis X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [weirds] CNNIC Selected to Implement an Open-Source RESTful WHOIS Server X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 27 Oct 2012 09:07:34 -0000 See the announcement/blog at . jaap From superuser@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 02:13:39 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 54AA721F87BA for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.854 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mrIV6MzjFtJ0 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F3921F876A for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n5so4317092oag.31 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EISc2BecHIWomEBPVDJtGar0iyVSHu8eLEc7IPUEiEQ=; b=W/Zuj+Rp7B5VHEajFGL+ndoio6OSUgh50BFWue3DhYixzXv2dY7izFJPgraFseZGAx gJnrjhEPqj8++NSENUhugClTld42I+JZKOhXF1EvnYaqJzUacUNKHMumVP0FLMQFoSPD IGcOSk0wUHnVZx+bIT4nFb4iu5dtvqFWYGwwnovfnSYhbUg6/F2DikIQPQbbp1UEn6jU SuoiIRyGw6U8y202dn82xEFCARjdLM+VCAzVgFn0JpSe2j92UDMYi0uaJS58NcIbb/8s oVNtrCZwfJZMzDBg6PAgmu2eKhJYWyQEmwymvTnpaXpAFq+skE+Fbep5zQz+nlMPXU4f fTzw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.17.72 with SMTP id m8mr22015216obd.55.1351415614291; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121022133839.GJ9485@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6970F4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <50817C1C.808@afilias.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20121019091750.09c9a7c0@resistor.net> <20121022133839.GJ9485@x28.adm.denic.de> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:13:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Peter Koch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Requirement Suggestions from ICANN-45 X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 09:13:39 -0000 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Peter Koch wrote: >> There isn't any mention of data retention in the charter. It seems >> to me that the WG will end up trying to solve "the Whois problem" if >> it tackles all the requirements being thrown in its path. > > +1; > > while this oe "whowas" might be small extensions to the protocol, > (probably only a date added to the query for "whowas"), they are > different services. Since we have to expect the WEIRDS spec > be misused as service description, i'd suggest the group stick to > its charter. I don't believe we're chartered to do a WHOWAS service, just to be clear. It's not part of the existing basic WHOIS service that we're trying to replace. In terms of the second requirement (data validation), it's hard to say whether or not that's in charter without a definition of what it is. If it's simply "the registrar has done its due diligence trying to confirm the data's validity" as a flag or date stamp in the reply, then I suspect it's simply part of the data model, and thus in-scope. If however there's an expectation that we will define what "validation" means and also find a way to do it, then I would say we're not going to tackle that one with this charter. -MSK, co-chairin' From superuser@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 02:18:44 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 4245021F8545 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uobLiik2B9Vi for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9F221F841B for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n5so4318838oag.31 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LBh0vx4szJm/ErEos+81xbLkX9W71Xh9HxO2VKvjNP8=; b=FpWmP7IBNimjT2SJkibfPzTbcRLfjpCMDV8QquishOUpRrih3S+A+uS1sCjBldUfCf /wiF97Xi6gZWjQX6chkKr0/Oh/BSYQfrkPliPrvToM9RQYxsvLAcg0MASrn1m3/hyQO9 seM8yMhqbSPiEhRl4JOJk+lKNEoN1R9gpxaD6YCuEJElMhOGPv4wflIAxDkFBm+qO4Kf NRyRcN/QBzmZRimN0JDgbqSOFabDYUYzeyhwD+/pZ96dUAp2rTHuX4oxNupbgk/pV/xt yX3dogZH2bgf7gr8hkcqmxnj/tnKZXmZr6x7kcsF6kKcAclHjsKJ/LA6aHW/SOKHCIVv 2rWA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.26.232 with SMTP id o8mr23094975oeg.7.1351415923438; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A27FC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A27FC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:18:43 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Peter Koch , "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 09:18:44 -0000 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > My take: it's an operational requirement that has an implied protocol requirement. I think the protocol requirement is that there MUST be a way to ask for and deliver information about different types of contacts. I don't think I've ever seen a requirement that involves being able to request that the reply contain specific fields, or even specific fields and no others. I suppose I've been imagining a port 43 analog, i.e., "tell me everything you know and are willing to tell me about X" which will hopefully contain the field(s) desired. The current query document doesn't seem to support anything more specific, although I admit recently I've only skimmed it. Is this something into which we need to dive deeper, or am I just making more work here? -MSK From superuser@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 02:21:24 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 9899021F884D for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iz8J59C-JLV3 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1252C21F8800 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so4256898obq.31 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=m7AypZDKz79r1tQLMvNRhHGpolmLF8c7JtRzjxGJSt0=; b=bglMQXYHHZVAOeOmY2THJw5ZkN5bJecrkQCSYQBHMM/pLHBjC6ZpfKx6XRvhIRknYz LAaVuJDyd15graVhrW0tv9A3/GUOp8CI+x9S8lw3gkB6RgaWidEHdgu2zA6HinQYQW2P LewaloowmApfG3wIvCUc3QX/c0C3YeDKq24gVeLZ8CGiTsOObsbgfP+y3VprUj6PtHbt vDUmLr0V8tXKER1W0kLoj6vVCdrosgBygr8WvV9mqXiDyi0kr236TMql+vBwnYMPPIdG pBkYiUCIJiGdj6CwDMSvX82Nu9+fPHhoPIf2cYpg2gRDhk+Ysu3XWzbQVAr0NiMGHb69 Qapw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.32.178 with SMTP id k18mr23893525oei.8.1351416083638; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:21:23 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Marcos Sanz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 09:21:24 -0000 On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Marcos Sanz wrote: > Unfortunately TLS/SSL does not provide with the non-repudiaton property. I've been hanging out in layer 7 too long. Thin air. But I'm confused by this: If a connection authenticated and encrypted with TLS/SSL sends some payload to me, how could it claim later that it did not? -MSK From aservin@lacnic.net Sun Oct 28 02:37:12 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 B228821F84EC for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.529 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IxPeEuzgjKIr for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A02621F84E3 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (r186-48-194-206.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [186.48.194.206]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8A230845F for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:37:10 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <508CFCC3.4090908@lacnic.net> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:37:07 -0200 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: weirds@ietf.org References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A27FC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 09:37:12 -0000 I think we discussed we did. Not sure if it was in Vancouver, during the BoFs or in the list but we did. So far today we have not done because the protocol is unable, but I guess there is interest for a feature that can produce two (or more) sets of information depending of the user credentials. What information to deliver to the set of users if a matter of policy, but my opinion is that we should provide the mechanism. Regards, as On 28/10/2012 07:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott > wrote: >> My take: it's an operational requirement that has an implied protocol requirement. I think the protocol requirement is that there MUST be a way to ask for and deliver information about different types of contacts. > > I don't think I've ever seen a requirement that involves being able to > request that the reply contain specific fields, or even specific > fields and no others. I suppose I've been imagining a port 43 analog, > i.e., "tell me everything you know and are willing to tell me about X" > which will hopefully contain the field(s) desired. The current query > document doesn't seem to support anything more specific, although I > admit recently I've only skimmed it. > > Is this something into which we need to dive deeper, or am I just > making more work here? > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds > From superuser@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 02:40:16 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 0401E21F86F8 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKqhq+PM77lr for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF5A21F8606 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n5so4326187oag.31 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bRW0mcXr3mViaSK5uFMQpBvYEJ8MUuXCp7GIoY9qH9o=; b=pBGSvYE1m4PtxT8Cr+OGIueUgIdUsmPmOsD8oCN9j9uQFqB1wpLdeuGOSdTB1+fVhW twV7SsdIbsgpZ+rE16od+wA+35lCof3LzlJy2psdqCGaU8FmWksXaq34OlU1HgslYH/l p6MN8peEFpbNzFg5e7PgMZK5QPVl5A5FTA4AdIoN1Jv0V2Lzbyjjklak48KS8qfcx5R7 YUS7777kzDM2BafcbsTyuXH9n10RKpgsRYjylWHXWhtPpVwIpmosQxlJQwVK+zRdOi3P /sAGRhV5d4x15kU271hfF7cfugDrmmhWkKX9BXkQxWWjxkgQOIgbRboIpkcaQtbTKuZG qu6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.19.162 with SMTP id g2mr23923097oee.73.1351417215150; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:40:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] Preliminary agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 09:40:16 -0000 Colleagues, I have posted a preliminary agenda for our November 5th meeting: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-weirds Please give it a once-over and let me know if any topics were missed or if I've volunteered you for something you can't do. Also, since we do have some AOB time at the end, if you have a slot assigned and would like more time than you were given, let us know. -MSK, co-chairin' From superuser@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 02:41:58 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 4BA8D21F8606 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fb0g3ZQyJbMO for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8540C21F85C1 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so4263550obq.31 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YuTMNdMRejEhgFNr/HbjrosVfsGsDX6wcZmbpIxKl6Y=; b=d/UUOQxMepTCkCuYpmd6d7PnroSAENOr9yKS36hbnIZlaFEZVjxjCvEeyEH83MChpm f5J7B+XhUCbnnql3R9MXn3o0Pb6CVYpj4zZ6I3VbpZKjqC3zpCXxMpNLy9jMiOJcNkri 4S9D26TCqzbWsB+9Ew0n6fc4mcJ7xnfBR+UDlL+q1+hMQ6AxbMoHl71K87GlVOTW9KxO wqcVqJeuBYV2JzGL3KpMDIMfNPNyxt5mil2CkltlPJuzPoUWL++S2U/pSgunqkbFIUoJ iv0tnk8fDRA9yKBSOk5NKdsmA8yXgl4FZhwWeptDcmwS6BFd0cDDSv04e8LYkTIu6l+g IDtg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.157.82 with SMTP id wk18mr20541552obb.26.1351417317219; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.46.137 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <508CFCC3.4090908@lacnic.net> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A27FC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <508CFCC3.4090908@lacnic.net> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:41:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Arturo Servin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 09:41:58 -0000 On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: > I think we discussed we did. Not sure if it was in Vancouver, during > the BoFs or in the list but we did. > > So far today we have not done because the protocol is unable, but I > guess there is interest for a feature that can produce two (or more) > sets of information depending of the user credentials. What information > to deliver to the set of users if a matter of policy, but my opinion is > that we should provide the mechanism. I'm talking about the ability to ask a different/specific question, not the ability of a server to give a different answer based on who asked. The latter is clearly in scope already. -MSK From aservin@lacnic.net Sun Oct 28 04:17:20 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 EB61B21F86F9 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oVF3sJXSVvGK for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B0821F86C5 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r190-64-16-24.su-static.adinet.com.uy (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7003:2:e13c:6767:c151:10d]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6648F308424; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:17:14 -0200 (UYST) Message-ID: <508D1436.8080702@lacnic.net> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:17:10 -0200 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D695904@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69597F@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121022144905.GL9485@x28.adm.denic.de> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A27FC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <508CFCC3.4090908@lacnic.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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] Security Requirements: Availability X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 11:17:20 -0000 Understood now. Regards, as On 28/10/2012 07:41, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: >> I think we discussed we did. Not sure if it was in Vancouver, during >> the BoFs or in the list but we did. >> >> So far today we have not done because the protocol is unable, but I >> guess there is interest for a feature that can produce two (or more) >> sets of information depending of the user credentials. What information >> to deliver to the set of users if a matter of policy, but my opinion is >> that we should provide the mechanism. > > I'm talking about the ability to ask a different/specific question, > not the ability of a server to give a different answer based on who > asked. The latter is clearly in scope already. > > -MSK > From johnl@iecc.com Sun Oct 28 09:54:31 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 2F81621F852B for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibUaez1-G6+Y for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 C805E21F8513 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26088 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2012 16:54:28 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Oct 2012 16:54:28 -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=508d6344.xn--hew.k1210; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=FkHLExa0KAnw4x2KHkUsgXzSoS0RGhjRr+lj0j9mU40=; b=PHyhEyUQNkAG+Txuf4S79082A/fpmdvriU5WiCSOT7ttRPRDC42CilYzxXMsVXxnQwRF78g3aPSupwHlBc/4wG+TCvDkp4zO8KwxfxMxegpEf6R9FNjswePfyB7+vBwgGoSwVRDlp6X4/Yenr/dYPP8NDi5vwjGdi0fUlNaqWdU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=508d6344.xn--hew.k1210; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=FkHLExa0KAnw4x2KHkUsgXzSoS0RGhjRr+lj0j9mU40=; b=Soe4IZPN/XHaela+1tRDhYNYxKLliucWnxjtFLRFc+1i+gHjdHjh16lLSTYDEzWJ+dpdCfaT4PJQtmFa3OL5AWM2z4VokgfdD4Us7vB5BX7wgXhd8BP1b5DuXfUz4y7sa6xqaLvhZIsd+OxDPD8PNwNxXH5jgNYVradS+jXct6w= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 28 Oct 2012 16:54:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20121028165405.49919.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] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 16:54:31 -0000 >But I'm confused by this: If a connection authenticated and encrypted >with TLS/SSL sends some payload to me, how could it claim later that >it did not? It could say we don't show that transaction in our logs. For non-repudiation you need the crypto stuff attached to the payload rather than the channel. Having said that, none of the current WHOIS and WHOIS-ish provide non-repudiation, so I'd be interested to hear what concrete problem (as opposed to an item on a generic security checklist) people think that it solves. R's, John PS: Please don't refer to courts or lawsuits unless you can point to actual cases where a digital signture on a document made a difference. From sm@resistor.net Sun Oct 28 12:55:00 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 E263E21F86D5 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ms1vx2oGNl85 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3565E21F86CE for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9SJsqDf018590; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1351454096; bh=hPI/uSOAqmd/KvZXTPekUPfJUwtjTOnVbsZi+1gvRXY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=yrD3DDyEeh5DAGpJWHqJs0FDBT0ZOOEui+dSbrNCVzFNLBRnI+ZTTyvT1xQznLP5d DQvqVs0xDyWUYK6GUsZ6fJ23hd1QpxkesiIJKwpQZMss8Cp1P+LvBEjkaVGlTcigl9 P30LU2dGyL1eLARNqpy6VhAGw4Vtyq5zTVKxhTQg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1351454096; i=@resistor.net; bh=hPI/uSOAqmd/KvZXTPekUPfJUwtjTOnVbsZi+1gvRXY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ukCvMZLjmvfsHXF+CvO+x7fhRqLBRJYTHd3cO+WxQICT1OYSgEFfQzLdT4b+vB93f 8do7TEITOUZRhWpzhT7n1F8e61hTxoo8sR5WCboYhs9OX20A4bZmwGbzvUYwAk2MIp 5VrCnXTreOX4FdliyNQgULdsQaTHrSAU22fBAhQI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121028124121.099d8c48@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:48:59 -0700 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 28 Oct 2012 19:55:01 -0000 Hi Murray, At 02:21 28-10-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >But I'm confused by this: If a connection authenticated and encrypted >with TLS/SSL sends some payload to me, how could it claim later that >it did not? If I understood Marcos Sanz's comment, it is about TLS providing data integrity. TLS only secures communication between the two end-points. It does not have any non-repudiation property. An authenticated connection does not provide that property either. Regards, -sm From andy@arin.net Sun Oct 28 17:58:36 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 1AABD21F85BB for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:58:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id us2995V2O-6N for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CBA21F85BA for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id AB971164FF3; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F31164FED; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:58:34 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:57:54 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:58:20 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: SM , "Murray S. Kucherawy" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation Thread-Index: AQHNtUVFJRiw9kxVSaStv8SJwDo/e5fPdnEA Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:58:20 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121028124121.099d8c48@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <394F85143B1443468B659D6DFDCE1443@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 00:58:36 -0000 On 10/28/12 3:48 PM, "SM" wrote: > >If I understood Marcos Sanz's comment, it is about TLS providing data >integrity. TLS only secures communication between the two >end-points. It does not have any non-repudiation property. An >authenticated connection does not provide that property either. If the difference here is between channel security and object security, I think you can save the transaction and replay it. After all, if the server is the only entity with the corresponding private key for the public key that started off the session, why isn't that non-repudiation? Yeah, its not the classic case you see in object security but the property is still there. -andy From nkong@cnnic.cn Sun Oct 28 18:00:51 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 8094A21F85BB for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:00:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xN-y-vVgrfVq for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 21C5021F87A0 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:00:49 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:00:44 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:00:12 +0800 Message-ID: <01b401cdb570$bfeb0eb0$3fc12c10$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGsSAAyEb9sMrRDXgT13NPuyAKwTZgSTifw Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [weirds] Preliminary agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 01:00:51 -0000 Hi Murray and all, I'm glad to know that I'm suggested by you for presenting "Data model/inventory". But I'm sorry that I can't make it because I can't get VISA on time. If there is anything I can do remotely, please let me know. See you guys in Orlando ;-) Cheers, Ning > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:40 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] Preliminary agenda uploaded > > Colleagues, > > I have posted a preliminary agenda for our November 5th meeting: > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-weirds > > Please give it a once-over and let me know if any topics were missed or if I've > volunteered you for something you can't do. Also, since we do have some > AOB time at the end, if you have a slot assigned and would like more time > than you were given, let us know. > > -MSK, co-chairin' > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From johnl@iecc.com Sun Oct 28 18:18:30 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 E9A2321F85BA for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:18:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huOBAouH1vTx for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 356C221F85B6 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 58509 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2012 01:18:26 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2012 01:18:26 -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=508dd962.xn--30v786c.k1210; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=w0b5C+PG6mWpi4rbtwu59uQL0SMeF0NvZrxvWXZjP1Y=; b=RMhYcN+rIYnc0H0K1tckTY1DNiLOluhFykPseLy55K6Yx0mZ6tvsIbpqMEESqISGD3b2+z47QWttC1ZU2MQnIFg/ml1x4WfEKjF5Ey08i+FCZ5hK9JmtIOyHI0V49eYcgx+2uDkQha9a20uG0zX/PnppB3tKVwJY4fnHNZoFsig= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=508dd962.xn--30v786c.k1210; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=w0b5C+PG6mWpi4rbtwu59uQL0SMeF0NvZrxvWXZjP1Y=; b=kJQjwgcKRLidTW5Q0H6RZSjVKfiH+Vu6wYF50AeojvmYapQ3y/VYVmbcrBnApLWGlgz6qDbmGe7q85XdzYkjFN6ckKMDYO+1K8QK5Wk2dcAlC+lM7KjGnD3hXlv9Zw7Nvex3YUXkXTWezK4MVEppt5HpmCRvJnm6g0UZq0ILmYc= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 29 Oct 2012 01:18:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20121029011804.3284.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] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 01:18:31 -0000 >If the difference here is between channel security and object security, I >think you can save the transaction and replay it. After all, if the server >is the only entity with the corresponding private key for the public key >that started off the session, why isn't that non-repudiation? Or you can use a third party service that fetches objects and signs them with a timestamp, analogous to what a notary public does in the real world. Either way, I don't see why WEIRDS has to build in non-repudiation when none of its predecessors have provided it. R's, John From superuser@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 22:45:21 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 9133921F85B2 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.083, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ty+x6+abcGE4 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A3A21F8539 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so3112690lbo.31 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hEuAmPizm1V9DIZrTfNfWPhRWCNbNK6kAnvk1JjwPE4=; b=BP+Kix80OSkb8F9FyAODMtcfnxY/6icxYWzCXdBKOkrZm428OyFkt9xOxbeFYS/vsX 9aP2XBcs5gKC1jj1N1BnkGxj7Yld+XIfQL3fPtSBKgwXjDOFp9d16vf148JBzBJiV0QT WJa5ubMHFnyT5Y7vOpjVAgTYGWUarroaS1XAq0cU1vLd8OU/yKOsS4Yy/e6CEfN8OBBc 8NFDolQY4GToQsSXjpiUSpc+O1Q+vvSyT4enqzRjWdqkS6jqfxTu7IC89KlH69KeMxTf wqRBYof03EjMkqxSycG+5aE+1bO1xsVJCvCLfsjieuryGrHNVZFPUWpwkauEuPvHKhGf g7+w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.104.77 with SMTP id gc13mr25879273lab.16.1351489519625; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.144.164 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:45:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: weirds@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [weirds] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 05:45:21 -0000 To document authors: The agenda slots you have for your respective documents should be used to address topics within your documents that need attention, either because there are points of contention that need to be resolved or you need help developing the material and want to bring up some specific points for discussion. As soon as possible, please provide us with a specific list so those details can be added to the agenda. We don't want these time slots to be used as general purpose document introductions or walk-throughs, and we don't want to spend any time on issues that are already resolved. Thanks, -MSK, whose voice sounds strangely like Pete's at the moment From sanz@denic.de Mon Oct 29 00:33:25 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 73C7A21F84FC for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:33:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OdZ3cPgyoj5s for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD11221F84A7 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from notes1.fra2.osl.denic.de (notes1.fra2.osl.denic.de [10.122.50.48]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1TSjqb-0001vp-F3; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:33:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6958BC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-KeepSent: C302E369:26A9FB02-C1257AA6:00292CC9; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP1 Septem 15, 2011 From: Marcos Sanz Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:33:08 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes/Denic at 29.10.2012 08:33:21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 07:33:25 -0000 Murray, > But I'm confused by this: If a connection authenticated and encrypted > with TLS/SSL sends some payload to me, how could it claim later that > it did not? the TLS/SSL connection starts by setting up a secure channel via public-key cryptography. Then a shared key for symmetric crypto is agreed among the two participants, which will be used for the rest of the session (or until renegotation). The latter key is known to both parties, so any party could repudiate a payload claiming the other one made it up. If you need the non-repudiation feature, you have to provide it at a higher level. Best regards, Marcos From sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 29 00:51:45 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 D090C21F86EC for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:51:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zqIWd2pELdQm for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFD221F86EF for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:51:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9T7pbHp025599; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:51:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1351497102; bh=NmxhybqWG7LJM8iTT8O1N5FP4YLUA38uTqgBhpbpe1I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=u7gPzsLSD3IAIQkcMRRQmKJ5M25ypUMoPW5biKrIu1iB6MPHJsuudyR+r2NSPjfAt EXhU6vwlLD7DUbYORgRFUz3HA4gfVcaowgKoy8loVoUqtvbmmcB0R9KYLwyD5w3+5f T+2LRqmTK7cfqS4MNUj67hJlNnp79XwZgnW83S88= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1351497102; i=@resistor.net; bh=NmxhybqWG7LJM8iTT8O1N5FP4YLUA38uTqgBhpbpe1I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rvjMzJF99mqSKi1XhLih69AP/fr1a3OVZIhgF/iGH4KG+mSQX5AUbQW04JD0UOoGY xoTg7jQgdQNI5u3oX2X/o+yAv9vFXa+M7KV/1nPOtoiaUg7NtdWeGLj6Wps4ipIqCb SJxi2Jz18rBPoZu/K4zedp7R+tLJkXle0HIxZtVY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121028234221.0aa95780@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:47:09 -0700 To: Andy Newton From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121028124121.099d8c48@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 07:51:45 -0000 Hi Andy, At 17:58 28-10-2012, Andy Newton wrote: >If the difference here is between channel security and object security, I >think you can save the transaction and replay it. After all, if the server >is the only entity with the corresponding private key for the public key >that started off the session, why isn't that non-repudiation? Yeah, its >not the classic case you see in object security but the property is still >there. I might use what you described above for a statement. Personally, I would not call it non-repudiation. Regards, -sm From andy@arin.net Mon Oct 29 04:30:36 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 EAA4D21F85B3 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:35 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nO4LXHWmWEL9 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFB021F8526 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id DB57A21364B; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH05.corp.arin.net (chaxch05.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.94]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED36F213627; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:30:17 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:29:30 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:29:58 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: SM Thread-Topic: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation Thread-Index: AQHNtUVFJRiw9kxVSaStv8SJwDo/e5fPdnEAgAC1RYD///s1AA== Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:29:58 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121028234221.0aa95780@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <93EA7832BDDDC049B07C234C74DE998D@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 11:30:36 -0000 On 10/29/12 3:47 AM, "SM" wrote: >I might use what you described above for a statement. Personally, I >would not call it non-repudiation. Given that Marcos just proved me wrong, it is not. :) We can always use JOSE if we want or CMS if we want to be masochistic. This is all very interesting, but I think John's point still stands: this is scope creep. Are we also gonna specify cert hierarchies for validating signed objects? Develop a PKIX profile? Define cert path validation? -andy From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 29 07:26:25 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 226E421F8526 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:26:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aHyI8qsXKdC4 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6mx296.postini.com (exprod6mx296.postini.com [64.18.1.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6053521F84ED for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob126.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI6SDtqunNM8OW63a9wKzWrBhSjhGr/w@postini.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:26:24 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9TEQIU4025450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:26:18 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:26:18 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Specific document topics Thread-Index: AQHNtZiY+jRJq0t2AEWjLgJ3ajRh05fQVcOA Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9D25@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: 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 Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 14:26:25 -0000 Open issue for the query draft: query parameters for language tags For the security draft I intend to walk through each of the security servic= es we've been discussing, summarize what I think I've read on the mailing l= ist, and discuss that summary to see if we can confirm requirements. Scott ________________________________________ From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [weirds-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Murray= S. Kucherawy [superuser@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:45 AM To: weirds@ietf.org Subject: [weirds] Specific document topics To document authors: The agenda slots you have for your respective documents should be used to address topics within your documents that need attention, either because there are points of contention that need to be resolved or you need help developing the material and want to bring up some specific points for discussion. As soon as possible, please provide us with a specific list so those details can be added to the agenda. We don't want these time slots to be used as general purpose document introductions or walk-throughs, and we don't want to spend any time on issues that are already resolved. Thanks, -MSK, whose voice sounds strangely like Pete's at the moment _______________________________________________ weirds mailing list weirds@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds= From andy@arin.net Mon Oct 29 07:35:01 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 308BC21F870A for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:35:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XE1y00eyG8eR for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FDB21F86E7 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id D676C213647; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797A0213631; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.20) by CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:19 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH04.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.19]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:52 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Specific document topics Thread-Index: AQHNtZid6CXvwf73Xky6I133GC293JfQmpOA//+/WYA= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:34:51 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9D25@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 14:35:01 -0000 On 10/29/12 10:26 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >Open issue for the query draft: query parameters for language tags Hmmm=8A could we discuss this in the internationalization topic. Additionally, I don't think there is much under using-http and json-response that wouldn't be covered under a general i18n discussion. -andy From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Oct 29 08:08:20 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 2249C21F8674 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:08:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WQoN1K9p6Mw for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E35D21F8554 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI6b4mUWKc90uDXtys70dE4sf+xiA3Hz@postini.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:08:19 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9TEhaV1029300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:43:36 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:43:36 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Andy Newton , "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Specific document topics Thread-Index: AQHNtZiY+jRJq0t2AEWjLgJ3ajRh05fQVcOAgABHNYD//78YKA== Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9DCC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9D25@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, 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="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 15:08:20 -0000 ________________________________________ From: Andy Newton [andy@arin.net] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:34 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Murray S. Kucherawy; weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics On 10/29/12 10:26 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >> Open issue for the query draft: query parameters for language tags > Hmmm=8A could we discuss this in the internationalization topic. We could. Let's do that and drop the query document unless someone else has= an issue that I've forgotten. Scott= From andy@arin.net Mon Oct 29 08:33:36 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 A8EB721F86FB for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWWzu-nBFiWp for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2224A21F8533 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 1346D16503B; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CHAXCH06.corp.arin.net (chaxch06.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.95]) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3D1164F6B; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:33:34 -0400 (EDT) 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 14.2.283.3; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:33:00 -0400 Received: from CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net ([169.254.2.245]) by CHAXCH03.corp.arin.net ([10.1.30.17]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:33:33 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [weirds] Specific document topics Thread-Index: AQHNtZid6CXvwf73Xky6I133GC293JfQmpOA//+/WYCAAEV9gP//yukA Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:33:32 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9DCC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 15:33:36 -0000 On 10/29/12 10:43 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > >We could. Let's do that and drop the query document unless someone else >has an issue that I've forgotten. And the same for using-http and json-query. From what I can see, the big issues left to tackle are internationalization, security, and redirects. -andy From sm@resistor.net Mon Oct 29 08:37:22 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 4F16721F8712 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zb7ySSO9NesA for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C371A21F870E for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 q9TFbERb014924; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1351525039; bh=AXyF1LMQctditbzAJWfjsdgmcxNkKcKE8gE+B6masT8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=LeQbEFxk5vgu82VHBupqvDzm5puc9wjsqE4AF8QlwvtusBCZqv+/+vj3LDUEp5jL7 Y7moDnQNstetqkDnCNCPEncHhAXa8IQ6J6l9t4kIQlSsyJ/A42UsJJ/KEY5+4aBvbq ILnGcVSprCzT45oGeikTa0LMPH0XZFgWnL+EwUtk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1351525039; i=@resistor.net; bh=AXyF1LMQctditbzAJWfjsdgmcxNkKcKE8gE+B6masT8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=OUg4dsIjHczxiTotRhiHzVbO6MMdhzj0IBTite+8ZsGxSPGAH9woeyRtSp5cYh8m7 wan3Ss/NnF/SF5oUCTKn+19x8+yn8JccikhNCfvID5SaiNQ0qpvaAVmgj8CPA4OOM4 /Na7s1yItRyc0FyyaMJx80zZw4TOwAIcKyvuJk4w= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121029072710.0b17f8c0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:59:27 -0700 To: Andy Newton From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121028234221.0aa95780@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Security Requirements: Non-repudiation X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 29 Oct 2012 15:37:22 -0000 Hi Andy, At 04:29 29-10-2012, Andy Newton wrote: >This is all very interesting, but I think John's point still stands: this >is scope creep. Are we also gonna specify cert hierarchies for validating >signed objects? Develop a PKIX profile? Define cert path validation? I prefer not to do all that. Regards, -sm From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Mon Oct 29 20:56:39 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 A195821F8562 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZFmir5s-CgCL for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1111F21F855E for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:56:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6880"; a="2909920" Received: from ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.180]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2012 20:42:35 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,676,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="962256" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Oct 2012 20:56:38 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.local (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:56:37 -0700 Message-ID: <508F4FF2.4040702@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:56:34 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9D25@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9D25@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 30 Oct 2012 03:56:39 -0000 On 10/29/12 9:26 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > For the security draft I intend to walk through each of the security services we've been discussing, summarize what I think I've read on the mailing list, and discuss that summary to see if we can confirm requirements. > Scott: Can I suggest doing that summary *before* the meeting (i.e., this week), post it to the list, and see what people say? That may make it clear which issues are still contentious, or might show that there are really no contentious issues left. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From shollenbeck@verisign.com Tue Oct 30 06:26:39 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 3061021F8464 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:26:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdZgL-6XwmCO for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og118.obsmtp.com (exprod6og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372FE21F845F for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob118.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI/Vioc6lpeABzLrfbapaxHbJoYjAogl@postini.com; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:26:37 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9UDQVH3016568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:26:31 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:26:30 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Pete Resnick Thread-Topic: [weirds] Specific document topics Thread-Index: AQHNtlKRtzXb+qcCkESv+QiM6ul2Q5fR14/0 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:26:30 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6AA4A3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6A9D25@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, <508F4FF2.4040702@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <508F4FF2.4040702@qti.qualcomm.com> 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 Cc: "weirds@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 30 Oct 2012 13:26:39 -0000 Sure, I'll see what I can do. Scott ________________________________________ From: Pete Resnick [presnick@qti.qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 11:56 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] Specific document topics On 10/29/12 9:26 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > For the security draft I intend to walk through each of the security serv= ices we've been discussing, summarize what I think I've read on the mailing= list, and discuss that summary to see if we can confirm requirements. > Scott: Can I suggest doing that summary *before* the meeting (i.e., this week), post it to the list, and see what people say? That may make it clear which issues are still contentious, or might show that there are really no contentious issues left. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478= From shollenbeck@verisign.com Tue Oct 30 07:24:27 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 C23E521F84AF for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2EzLyM4HSUGD for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og105.obsmtp.com (exprod6og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1552021F84A7 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob105.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI/jGjXMBA0vior1Zof68TMR+SoPSoIB@postini.com; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:24:27 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9UEONlL018419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:24:26 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:24:23 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "weirds@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Security Service Summary Thread-Index: Ac22ps+5gETdCpDsRhqVrN0bv4NG6g== Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:24:22 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6AA4E8@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Subject: [weirds] Security Service Summary X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 30 Oct 2012 14:24:27 -0000 This is what I think I read while reviewing the discussion of the multiple = security service notes that I posted a few weeks ago. Please feel free to i= dentify any important points that I might have missed. I've added open ques= tions where I have them. Authentication: We have a requirement to specify an HTTP-based authenticati= on mechanism. QUESTION: which one? HTTP basic? HTTP digest? HTTP basic cou= ld be used with https (see data confidentiality below). Authorization: We have a requirement to include an authorization framework = that is capable of providing granular (per registration data object) permis= sions (access controls). We have another requirement to provide an anonymou= s access mechanism that may be turned on or off based on the policy of an o= perator. Availability: we have a DDoS security consideration that can be addresses w= ith a normative reference to RFC 4732. We have a requirement to support que= ry and display of contact entities for abuse reporting. Data Confidentiality: in the context of encryption the only *protocol* requ= irement that I've been able to identify is that authentication credentials = MUST be protected while in transit between client and server. There is no r= equirement to encrypt queries or responses. RFC 3707 says that when a value in an answer to a query is given, the proto= col MUST be capable of tagging the value with the following labels: 1. do not redistribute 2. special access granted QUESTION: Is this a requirement for RDAP? Data Integrity: we have not identified a requirement to provide this servic= e. There may, however, be a requirement to provide some sort of response el= ement that confirms that an element has been "validated" or "verified", whi= ch some people will likely confuse with a data integrity service. QUESTION:= how do we want to approach this? Non-repudiation: we have not identified a requirement to provide this servi= ce. Scott= From nkong@cnnic.cn Tue Oct 30 23:12:32 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 6A08921F8482 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.277, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26fM6m+FLnc0 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 01DC121F8479 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:12:27 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:12:21 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Jaap Akkerhuis'" , Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:12:17 +0800 Message-ID: <003201cdb72e$ae4e5440$0aeafcc0$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac22gQvI81xQeBFLSB6eP8UGgyKQZA== Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [weirds] CNNIC Selected to Implement an Open-Source RESTful WHOIS Server X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 31 Oct 2012 06:12:32 -0000 Hi folks, CNNIC is very glad to be selected as the project contractor to implement an Open-Source RESTful WHOIS Server. We'd like to release the project on a Trac wiki website which will be published later in the mailing list. The source code will be available for public distribution with open source BSD licenses. Any volunteer is welcomed to join us! Cheers, Ning > -----Original Message----- > From: weirds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:weirds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Jaap Akkerhuis > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:07 PM > To: weirds@ietf.org > Subject: [weirds] CNNIC Selected to Implement an Open-Source RESTful > WHOIS Server > > See the announcement/blog at > - > restful-whois-server/>. > > jaap > _______________________________________________ > weirds mailing list > weirds@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds From Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz Wed Oct 31 06:10:26 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 9A12021F8480 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:10:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWCbyqDGgnQx for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp161.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp161.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306C121F847F for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp26.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A862DA85C4; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:10:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp26.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: edlewis-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPA id 1EA3BA85D3; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <508176A3.2090608@lacnic.net> References: <50814AE3.20709@seltzer.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D69E941@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20121019142812.GA22660@mx1.yitter.info> <5081687C.3000301@lacnic.net>, <20121019145408.GC22660@mx1.yitter.info> <508176A3.2090608@lacnic.net> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:10:20 -0400 To: Arturo Servin From: Edward Lewis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Cc: weirds@ietf.org Subject: Re: [weirds] ICANN 45 report X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 31 Oct 2012 13:10:26 -0000 At 13:49 -0200 10/19/12, Arturo Servin wrote: > Fair enough. A date seems to be the most appropriate. A date or "never". -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!