[Ietf-not43] From answer to domain

Wed Oct 15 15:55:55 EDT 2003

Ted,

thanks for the official disclaimer =) We are implementing a PRIVATE inter registrar data exchange using some of the IRIS structures. the feedback of early implementations might be of some benifit to the draft authors.

So, I'd recomend allowing this little effort to continue here as its as close a review as anyone has attempted to date.

-rick

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:42:47 -0700
hardie at qualcomm.com wrote:

> As I read the charter, this work is out of scope for CRISP.  Note
> this line in particular:
> 
> "Backwards compatibility with existing administrative directory services
> such as WHOIS is not a goal of this effort."
> 
> I recognize that what you are trying to do is a bit closer to "make WHOIS
> forward compatible with CRISP", but I think the same logic applies.
> The group has defined a set of requirements, and it is pretty clear
> that this work does not meet those requirements.
> 
> This does not mean I want to discourage you from this work, but I would
> like you to distinguish it from CRISP.  One way to do that might be to
> set up a separate mailing list and provide a pointer to this list describing
> the list's purpose; you might also wish to talk to the DREG schema authors
> directly.
> 
> 			regards,
> 				Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> At 11:25 AM -0700 10/15/2003, Chris Ambler wrote:
> >A small bit of history - Rick Wesson published a draft a couple of years ago
> >with a simple XML format for WHOIS exchange. Essentially, an XML
> >encapsulation of all of the stuff you'd want to see in WHOIS output. I took
> >that draft and changed it to support what we need today. Rick took a look at
> >it and said, "Hey, dreg has all of this stuff - why not just use that rather
> >than make a whole new format?" That made sense to me, as the dreg schema
> >does, indeed, have everything we need.
> >
> >The solution is a constrained one. We want to just emit domain information,
> >and we want to do it in a single transmission - no extra trips to the server
> >to resolve IDs or handles.
> >
> >As such, the solution seems to be to emit a resultSet with an answer
> >containing a single domain, and an additional element with the contacts and
> >nameservers and such in the same resultSet.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >So the fact that we don't re-invent the wheel should mean that this makes
> >sense then and there. As for the future, it allows us to be open to more of
> >the features for this and future projects, and to more easily integrate our
> >WHOIS output with other, larger IRIS-based projects. No?
> >
> >Christopher
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Blacka [mailto:davidb at verisignlabs.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:05 AM
> >To: Chris Ambler
> >Cc: ietf-not43 at lists.verisignlabs.com
> >Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] From answer to domain
> >
> >
> >On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 01:08  PM, Chris Ambler wrote:
> >
> >> Heretical question: if the XSD is just a suggestion, as you intimate,
> >> what
> >> prevents me from breaking normalization and adding the allowance that,
> >> for
> >> example, the technicalContacts element of the domain element may
> >> contain, in
> >> addition to an iris:entity element, a contact element?
> >>
> >> Okay, let's say I don't do that (because your objection will be, "yes,
> >> that
> >> breaks normalization, and we'd prefer that not happen), but put the
> >> actual
> >> element in the additional element... is there a procedure whereby I
> >> can push
> >> my XSD back out as the "official XSD for using the dreg:domain inside
> >> of an
> >> answer element for the purpose of registrar WHOIS transmission?" or
> >> some
> >> such?
> >
> >I might be misunderstanding this whole conversation, but it seems to me
> >that you are trying to use the IRIS/DREG1 schema for some
> >non-IRIS/DREG1 purpose, and that you are having some difficulties
> >because of this.
> >
> >Is the goal to create a WHOIS interchange format that will interoperate
> >with CRISP, or is this an independent effort?  (By interoperate, I am
> >thinking that there may be a desire for a registrar to use one of these
> >files as the data source for an IRIS/DREG1 server).
> >
> >If this is an independent effort, then you should just be using the
> >DREG1 schema as a starting point.  The DREG1 schema was designed in the
> >context of the IRIS architecture.  If that architecture isn't there,
> >then the schema isn't going to be ideal.  In that case, you may as well
> >as create your own (albeit similar) schema.
> >
> >If it isn't an independent effort, then we need to make sure we
> >understand how your efforts and IRIS need to interoperate.  The schemas
> >are not set in stone, but we need to understand the problems before we
> >can judge what changes (if any) need to be made to the schemas.
> >
> >--
> >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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> Ietf-not43 at lists.verisignlabs.com
> https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43