[ssac-gnso-irdwg] FW: [centr-tech] Re: [centr-ga] Re: Re: FW: [ccnso-members] Technical evolution of the WHOIS
The discussion about whois evolution is going in various sectors of the ICANN communities. FYI --andrei -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 9:28 PM To: Kim Davies Cc: Jörg Schweiger; Peter Van Roste; ga@xxxxxxxxx; tech@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [centr-tech] Re: [centr-ga] Re: Re: FW: [ccnso-members] Technical evolution of the WHOIS > > On 24/02/2011, at 9:55 PM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >> >> I agree with Jörg. Also, Internet standards and protocols are developed in and by the IETF...not ICANN... > > Jay's paper starts out with "WHOIS is not a technical issue". I think it clearly it is a mixture of both technical and policy issues, and there is no clear single forum where you can discuss all the issues. I think the full intention is to go to the IETF for any standardisation/protocol work, but if that is the sole venue then I don't have confidence it will go anywhere. > > For what its worth, my exposure to this is IANA developed a RESTful interface to its data (domain registrations, IP addresses, etc.) internally early last year and has been considering making it public. After some discussion we realised RIRs were undertaking similar efforts to develop REST based interfaces. Then later the gTLD policy folks in ICANN said they were looking at it in response to GNSO efforts to look at improvements to the WHOIS. It seems without coordination, increasing numbers of registries are independently coming to the conclusion REST approaches are useful here. I think it is worth investigating whether common approaches to this for WHOIS are useful. If they are not, they are not. So playing devils advocate (and admittedly stretching the example) - but this is roughly what ITU-T used to motivate the SG15 decision to standardize OAM for MPLS as IETF turned it down. If I understand what you are proposing - you want to co-ordinate and eventually publish BCP, or BCP like documentation on REST approaches. I don't see why this can't be done in the IETF? We don't need more fragmentation, we need to believe in and use our own processes. That is the only point I tried to make. Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis@xxxxxxxxx, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franzéngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden Attachment:
PGP.sig |