Re: Recent whois list traffic

I sure hope it's not dead.
I believe that Patrik Fältström has an unreleased draft for whois, which
looks almost good-to-go to me.

wil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:30 PM
Subject: Recent whois list traffic


> On March 4th, six weeks ago, Scott replied to a suggestion by William Tan
> sent to both the whois and provreg lists, on signature services. There is
> nothing further in the ietf-whois list archive [1]. If this list has gone
> dead, then all the heat and faint light of the IETF-49 BoF are memories,
> and someone (an AD or other capable and disinterested person) should sweep
> up the debris from this list and post the summary.
>
> This should not be the case. The :48 problem may be solved by abandonment,
> but that simply means that :48 implementors will find no other guidance in
> the IETF's {BCP,FYI,RFC,STD} series than rfc954 [2] (DS), and whatever the
> implementors and their delegating-authories negociate as manditory. These
> non-rfc954 mandates by their nature are implementor:delegating-authority
> specific, and could contain requirements similar to the "just use XML"
> suggestion made early in this list's life.
>
> The case for "anything other than <querygunk><CRLF> -> response -> close
> connection" [3], e.g.:
> o the distinction between "technical" and "social" data [4],
>   definitions and repositories,
> o policy-labeled (EU/OEDC: "data collection", US "privacy"),
> o encodings other than LDH ASCII (see "technical" and "social"),
> o referral (navigation for distributed data models),
> o schema -- a core and one (or more) extension mechanisms,
> and for those looking for adventure (and having read Harald's latest roman
> a cle, [5])
> o uniqueness and scope,
> o repository method and method temporal properties,
> o consistency (consistency for distributed data models),
> o security (integrity, access, see also policy-labels, above),
> o update models (or invalidation),
> is still TBD, with little actual closure on either technical guidance to
> ICANN, one well-known delegating-authority, or on a post-43 WG Charter.
>
> I'm happy (sort of) taking my (.biz) whois:43 and post-43 implementor
issues
> to other similarly situated (fat gTLD registry) implementors outside of
the
> IETF, and (less so) to the .biz delegating-authority. However, this seems
to
> lead to a whois:43 and/or post-43 set of services that has a rich,
complex,
> even baroque taxonomy, in which implementors, models, and above all (pun)
> delegating-authorities fail to make use of the IETF as a (current)
standards
> body.
>
> My sympathies to anyone pouring over Appendix O this weekend.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
> References:
> [1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-whois/mail-archive/
> [2] RFC0954 NICNAME/WHOIS. K. Harrenstien, M.K. Stahl, E.J. Feinler.
>     Oct-01-1985. (Format: TXT=7397 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0812)
>     (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
> [3] Mark Kosters to ietf-whois, Re: Minutes from San Diego, 17 Jan 2001
> [4] draft-ietf-provreg-dn-defn-00
> [5] draft-alvestrand-directory-defs-02.txt