[Ietf-not43] Comments on CRISP Requirements draft-06 and CRISP Internet Resour ce Number Requirements draft-00

[Rick Wesson]

Mr Attorney:

nice work! Though it looks like you are simply focused on US data elements.

If you would be so kind to respond to my comments in line.

thanks,

-rick


On Tuesday 11 November 2003 2:09 pm, Ryan Lehning wrote:
> I would like to submit the following comments on two CRISP documents:
> draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-06 (hereafter Requirements documet) and
> draft-ietf-crisp-internet-resource-number-req-00 (hereafter Numbers
> document).
>
> Requirements Document
>
> The draft protocol outlined in the Requirements document fails to fully
> describe the community of users who need access to Internet resource
> information, including registrant data for domain name registrations.  As
> such, I propose an amendment to section 2.4 "End Users," to include a new
> subsection 2.4.7 as follows:
>
> 2.4.7 General Public
>
> 		General and casual users of the Internet use the directory
> services of Internet registries to determine who is behind the Internet
> resources with which they interact.  The general public use of directory
> services facilitates consumer protection, prevention of fraud, protection
> of minors, and transparency of the Internet.
>
> Similarly, the protocol fails to include a framework for ensuring the
> accuracy and currentness of data elements.  This could be remedied by
> amending the Requirements to include specifications for tagging returned
> values to show if the accuracy of data has been verified, if so, when, and
> by what method it was verified.  I propose the following amendment:
>
> 	3.1.15 Data Verification Labels
>
> 	3.1.15.1 Protocol Requirement
>
> 		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.	Accuracy of data has been verified

please define accuracy, as an example describe how to accurately assess an 
address element in 207 countries.

> 		2.	Accuracy of data has not been verified
>
> 		If the data has been verified, the protocol MUST be capable
> of tagging the value with the following labels:
>
> 		1.	Accuracy of data was last verified on [data on which
> the accuracy of data was last verified]
>
> 		2.	Accuracy of data was last verified by [method by
> which the accuracy of data was last verified]

where are method to be kept, are you proposing another IANA database otherwize 
please describe the method by withch accuracy checking methods are refrenced.

> 		The protocol MUST include a typology for describing the
> method by which the accuracy of data is verified.  For example, if
> verification takes place by cross-checking U.S. street addresses with a
> database of U.S. Zip Codes, a "1" could be inserted into the label to
> indicate verification by such method.

great, explain how this is done for china, japan, and aruba. If you can't make 
your method work for those countries then we can safely ignore the rest of 
your note.


> 		The protocol MAY define other values for this purpose, but
> MUST define values defined above at a minimum.  The protocol MUST be
> capable of attaching these labels concurrently.
>
> 		3.1.15.2 Service Description
>
> 		Though registries may have different policies regarding
> access to their data, the accuracy of that data is vital to the stability
> and security of the Internet.  For this reason, registries may need to tag
> data, or queried values, with labels specifying if and when the accuracy of
> the data had been verified, and the method by which it was verified.
>
> Numbers Document

yea, right...[snip]