ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[ssac-gnso-irdwg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ssac-gnso-irdwg] FW: [centr-tech] Re: [centr-ga] Re: Re: FW: [ccnso-members] Technical evolution of the WHOIS

  • To: "'Ird'" <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] FW: [centr-tech] Re: [centr-ga] Re: Re: FW: [ccnso-members] Technical evolution of the WHOIS
  • From: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:23:52 +0300

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
Description: PGP signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy