[Ietf-not43] Proposed charter

[Ted Hardie]

Howdy,
	Based on the discussions we've had since the last IETF, I
believe that the scope of the CRISP work has been narrowed to a focus
on DNS-related registries, registrars, and registrants.  Though I
believe that there is value from a user perspective for a more general
approach, I believe that deployment of such services is unlikely among
other infrastructure registries using similar administrative directory
services.  Given that, I have put together the following straw
charter, which is narrower in focus than those discussed at previous
BoF sessions.  Comments to the list are welcome.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie


Cross-Registry Information Service Protocol (CRISP)

Chair:  

Ted Hardie <ted.hardie@nominum.com>

Applications Area Directors:

Patrik Falstrom <paf@cisco.com>
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>

Mailing list:

ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
Archive/Subscription:
   https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43

Description of Working Group:

The expansion and growth of the Internet Domain Name System has seen
the functions of a traditionally centralized and managed registry
become the responsibility of various autonomous, functionally
disparate, and globally distributed Internet registries and
registrars.  With that expansion, the uses of administrative directory
services has also expanded from the original use of the WHOIS protocol
to include: the use of whois outside the scope its specification;
formal and informal definitions of syntax; undocumented security
mechanisms; the use of non-standard protocols, etc.  The existing
situation seriously hinders interoperability from a registrant
perspective, as multiple systems and procedures must be used for
different registrars or registries.

This working group will define a new standard service to meet the
administrative directory needs requirements of DNS registrants,
registrars, and registries.  While the framework created will
hopefully be sufficiently flexible to allow re-use by other services
with related design criteria, those uses will not constrain protocol
selection.  Backwards compatibility with existing administrative
directory services such as WHOIS is not a goal of this effort.
Provisioning of data into registry or registrar systems is likewise
out of scope.


The CRISP service definition will define: 

o specific data types and queries to be supported in the global service

o standard process for naming or locating authoritative servers 

o expression of input query 

o expression of result sets 

o standard expression of error conditions 

o authentication and verification of data integrity

Deliverables: 

o Finalized requirements document for the CRISP service

o Document specifying (the use of) a protocol for providing CRISP
  standard service.


Goals and Milestones:

 Oct 02    Submit requirements document as an Informational RFC 
           
 Nov 02    Submit first draft of protocol (use) specification

 Apr 03    Submit revised protocol (use) specification document
           as Proposed Standard.
           
 Apr 03    Enter FIN_WAIT