[Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

[Chris Ambler]

Interchange between registrars. The impetus for this is the problem wherein
registrars have to hit each other's port 43 systems and page scrape to
verify registrant data for transfers. We're implementing a two-front
solution consisting of a predictable format as well as an IP-whitelist to
ensure access to the interface. Some registrars are emitting the XML in
their port 43 systems and others are making SOAP web services available (or
both).

So, the simple solution appeared to be to return a single result containing
a "domain" element and an "additional" element such that all data is
available in a single payload transmission. I could write my own schema, or
use dreg. It seemed logical to use dreg.

And yes, this could be characterized not as "backwards compatibility with
WHOIS," but the first step in "WHOIS forward compatibility" for what it's
worth (perhaps not much :-))

Again, I'm open to consensus on this. Perhaps track dreg as the format, but
be a separate effort, which would eliminate any crossover, yet provide for
easier interoperability, should that come to pass?

Christopher

-----Original Message-----
From: David Blacka [mailto:davidb at verisignlabs.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:51 AM
To: ietf-not43 at lists.verisignlabs.com
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 02:25 pm, Chris Ambler wrote:

> The goal here is to create a WHOIS interchange format. Period. At
> Rick's urging, we're using dreg instead of something new, simply
> because they'd be, essentially, the same thing. The only difficulty
> here is in getting the data into a single transmission, which is
> made slightly challenging because of the normalization issue. But
> including the elements in the additional element should solve this.

Perhaps you said earlier, but interchanging between what and what?  I
only ask because if you want a format for exchanging entire WHOIS data
sets, you might want to look at the <iris:serialization> stuff
described in the iris-core document.  Otherwise, you are almost
describing a limited IRIS server using a different transport.  Not
that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.

-- 
David Blacka    <davidb at verisignlabs.com> 
Sr. Engineer    Verisign Applied Research

_______________________________________________
Ietf-not43 mailing list
Ietf-not43 at lists.verisignlabs.com
https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43