RE: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today
- To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today
- From: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:47:34 -0600
I disagree with Ross that this is out of scope since we are talking
about whether registrars currently deploy some technological limitations
on Port 43, and whether such limitations could be useful in developing a
tiered access approach to WHOIS.
I believe that the registrar's current practices, including
blacklisting/whitelisting IP addresses, rate limits per IP addresses,
and truncated records per IP address, may be some of the limitations
that could be evaluated in our work. As a registrar, I agree with Ross
that any changes to WHOIS access need to be implementable and not cost
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Re: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today
Completeness is a service specific notion. In this case, the whois query
was conducted through the non-authoritative registry whois which has
different collection and publication requirements. Authoritative
registrar whois requirements are slightly different, leading to the
payload as illustrated in the example below. There is a second type of
non-authoritative whois data, also known as "referral whois data" which
are those whois services provided by third party services who are simply
reproducing the data found at the authoritative whois service offered by
the registrar. Depending on the method of query, there are policy
issues, probably out of scope for this working group, related to the
methods of acquisition and publication of this type of data by these
Tucows does not employ rate limiting in its whois services, however we
do employ query limiting and blacklisting (blacklisting is a form of
rate limiting I suppose, if the rate limit is always assumed to be
So yes, the earlier whois data that was published was complete, as is
the record Margie reproduced below - the difference between the two is
only the source of the data, in this case Verisign registry and Tucows
Margie Milam wrote:
> Is this information from the registry WHOIS or the registrar WHOIS
> published through Port 43?
> The reason for my question is that I understand that some registrars
> will apply rate-limits on Port 43 with respect to certain blacklisted
> addresses, and will only publish a truncated WHOIS record (similar to
> this) when they receive inquiries from an IP address that they believe
> is abusing Port 43. I don't know if Tucows uses this method with
> respect to Port 43 (perhaps Ross can clarify).
> This could be relevant to our analysis as we explore, per Ross'
> suggestion, the technical possibilities related to Port 43,that could
> utilized in a tiered access approach.
> I note that if I go to the Tucows website and do a WHOIS lookup on
> bankofamerica.com, I get the complete WHOIS record (see below).
> Whois info for, bankofamerica.com:
> Bank of America
> 1201 Main St.
> Dallas, TX 75202
> Domain name: BANKOFAMERICA.COM
> Administrative Contact:
> Administrator, Domain Domain.Administrator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1201 Main Street, 12th Floor
> M/S TX1-609-12-15
> Dallas, TX 75202
> Technical Contact:
> HostMaster, The hostmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 2000 Clayton Road
> M/S CA4-704-04-21
> Concord, CA 94520-2425
> Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
> Record last updated on 16-Mar-2007.
> Record expires on 28-Dec-2010.
> Record created on 28-Dec-1998.
> Domain servers in listed order:
> NS4.BANKOFAMERICA.COM 126.96.36.199
> NS3.BANKOFAMERICA.COM 188.8.131.52
> NS1.BANKOFAMERICA.COM 184.108.40.206
> Domain status: clientTransferProhibited
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: Margie Milam
> Cc: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today
> Margie Milam wrote:
>> Where is the rest of the WHOIS information? If this is this the
>> complete record, a lot of currently required information is missing.
>> The email address is missing from this, as well as the phone number
>> the various contacts. It would be very difficult to contact Bank of
>> America or send them an email if there were issues related to the
> There is nothing missing from this record.