On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant
> in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more"
> technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along
> standards
On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid
> carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think
> another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in
> which technical considerations imply real constraint
--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran
wrote:
>...
>> Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption
>> that anything that reasonably looks like "technical stuff"
>> belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just
>> make having the right conversations even
On 6/21/13 10:46 , John Curran wrote:
I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in
ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition
that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process
of consensus development and approval.
I believe that prot
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are "ICANN
> doing technical stuff" and even "technical standards" in a broad
> sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really
> should not want to do (I'm tempted to say
--On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 17:14 -0400 Warren Kumari
wrote:
>>> I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very
>>> active participant in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in
>>> ICANN could be easier if some "more" technical standards
>>> where developed in IETF,
>
> + lots.
>
>
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>>> As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be
>>> improved in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback m
On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>> As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be improved
>> in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might be better
>> placed in an ICANN discussion than on IETF li
I stand corrected.
My recollection about the initial pushback should be clarified...by the time
the reason got to me, EPP was something ICANN had asked of the IETF. Consider
that to be subject to the "telephone game
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game)" syndrome. ;)
On Jun 19, 2013,
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Edward
Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:01 PM
To: ietf
Cc: Edward Lewis
Subject: Lessons from PROVREG WG was Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois...
[snip]
> This is an example of an ICANN initiated piece of work that bar
On 19 jun 2013, at 18:01, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for the IETF
> to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products. Or realize that the
> "waterfall model" that seems to be in place is no longer appropriate. (As if
> you've nev
> Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for the
> IETF to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products.
I think there is some truth to this.
The reality has at times been that some WGs get a bit out of control
after they've been around a while, and getting them to d
On 6/19/13 9:01 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for
the IETF to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products. Or
realize that the "waterfall model" that seems to be in place is no
longer appropriate. (As if you've never heard that
On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:01, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> But there is no EPP WG. And WEIRDS is supposed to only be forward-looking,
> not dealing with practices with the current protocol.
Brief history and then maybe a point. (Written as one of the co-chairs of the
PROVREG WG.)
In December 2000 a Bo
On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:27 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> And do not let me get started on EPP or Whois issues... ;-)
Actually, let's let you get started. :-)
Part of the problem you are seeing with the lack of RFCs desired by ICANN is
that it is now harder to get an individual su
ed for this draft is in the ICANN context, not the IETF context, so of
course it is hard to see the need in the IETF. Lack of an RFC there is by
definition creating discussions in ICANN that goes on and on.
And do not let me get started on EPP or Whois issues... ;-)
> Sometimes peop
Hi Patrik,
At 23:25 18-06-2013, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see
as a very active participant in ICANN (chair of
SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some
"more" technical standards where developed in
IETF, and moved forward along standards track,
On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko wrote:
> As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be improved
> in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might be better placed
> in an ICANN discussion than on IETF list. And is not like there'd be nothing
> to improv
> As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be
> improved in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might
> be better placed in an ICANN discussion than on IETF list.
when that feedback is that the icann does not really listen to feedback,
i think there is a pro
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will be shortly on
> the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision and/or suggestion for changes.
> I personally think it is ready to move forward. That is not to say that we
> would
John,
> For the record, I still believe that 2050bis should be
> published. Regardless of what I think of some of the things it
> says, I think it is reasonably reflective of reality and that
> reality is always worth documenting.
Thanks.
> As to my more general comments, they were not really a
--On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 19:54 +0300 Jari Arkko
wrote:
> Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will
> be shortly on the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision
> and/or suggestion for changes. I personally think it is ready
> to move forward. That is not to say that we
Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will be shortly on
the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision and/or suggestion for changes. I
personally think it is ready to move forward. That is not to say that we
wouldn't take comments, if you have some.
As for the rest of the
has
> another effect: only those with a very strong commitment to the
> work and resources to back that commitment up can participate in
> practice. Those people usually turn out to be those with a
> vested interest in particular results, interests that are
> dominated by those wi
selling names. Others who might be willing to invest personal
resources to participate in the best interests of the Internet
are typically driven out of active participation in the process,
if not initially than by the sequence and multitude of
committees and inability to even figure out where th
ks for the reference. I have read some messages [1][2] from the
person. I don't recall reading the book. As the subject line
mentions Whois I found something to read [3].
Regards,
-sm
1. http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-April/024498.html
2. http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/ad
On 5/21/2013 8:50 AM, SM wrote:
I gather that everyone is aware that civil society has been somewhat
uncivil lately. That society has not made any significant negative
comments about the IETF.
Actually it has. Since he's such a long-active figure in those circles,
check out Milton Mueller's
Hi Olivier,
At 03:00 21-05-2013, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
And you do NOT need to be part of an At-Large Structure to participate
in the At-Large Working Groups. Membership is only needed for matters of
voting - and since we operate by consensus, that's a rare occurrence,
usually only kept
Hi Steve,
At 01:42 21-05-2013, Steve Crocker wrote:
I want to share two thoughts, one about the role of the IETF, ICANN
and other organizations within the Internet ecosystem, and one about Whois.
The great strength of the IETF is it's a forum for technical people
to come together, wor
Dear Randy,
On 21/05/2013 11:58, Randy Bush wrote:
> dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of
> attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being
> effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could
> go on and on, but i am far less
On 21/05/2013 10:42, Steve Crocker wrote:
> As I said above, I invite anyone who is interested to participate.
>
> The IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, ISOC, W3C and other organizations have all arisen
> within the ecosystem that accompanies the growth and prevalence of the
> Internet. It is natural for t
dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of
attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being
effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could
go on and on, but i am far less wordy.
randy
Dan and John,
Thanks for the exchange last week. As chair of ICANN's Board of Directors and
an active participant in ICANN's current effort to take a fresh look at the
Whois architecture and operation, your notes catch my attention in multiple
ways. But first, for the benefit of u
Questions:
WHOTHEHECKIS AAAQ.com?
Can they bill your phone for the service?
Thanks-
_
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
__
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> I believe Frank's concern is that he wants the ability to
>> refuse services to sites who have not published accurate
>> contact information through whois.
> Very bad idea, IMHO. But it's true that, if you refuse email
> from "
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> voluntary publication of information has an extremely
> flexible and powerfull tool at its disposition. It is
> named the web.
Sure, and reporting trouble also has some powerful tools,
send a mail to postmaster@ or abuse@ or similar addresses.
The whois in
(somewhat offtrack...)
--On 24. august 2005 10:27 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The vast majority of the ccTLD in the world have no whois server
(check the "whois server" field in the IANA whois) and often not
publication of contact information at
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:35:23PM -0400,
Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> I believe Frank's concern is that he wants the ability to refuse
> services to sites who have not published accurate contact
> information through whois.
At 23:35 23/08/2005, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 11:38, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Nobody suggested to kill the whois protocol, just the badly written
> and obsolete RFCs which were requiring violations of various european
> laws regarding privacy. Neither ICANN or IE
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 11:38, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Nobody suggested to kill the whois protocol, just the badly written
> and obsolete RFCs which were requiring violations of various european
> laws regarding privacy. Neither ICANN or IETF should specify privacy
> policy for
y to stay up to date with efforts like the expired
> draft-sanz, or whois-servers.net, or the persistent attempts to
> destroy simple Internet infrastructure like "whois" in favour of
> complex solutions.
Nobody suggested to kill the whois protocol, just the badly written
and obso
replacing "whois" for the purposes of registries, e.g.
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-04
Marcos Sanz (with Gerhard Winkler) was the author of
http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-sanz-whois-srv-01.txt
He's also working for DENIC, and probably he does
unfortunately WHOIS is a protocol, and a rather simple one.
handles are part of the service that some registries/registrars have chosen
to implement on top of the WHOIS protocol. (Others provide similar
services, but don't use handles; others use the WHOIS protocol for
completely unre
I suspect that a better answer was desired.
I suggest that the local WHOIS handles be distinguished by the global WHOIS database
name. I am assuming that no two WHOIS database providers use the same global handle
for their WHOIS servers.
Then your database searches can find the instances of
Florian,
there is no guarantee the uniqueness of WHOIS handles. there is no name
space for whois, nor an entity to register such.
pick any prefix you wish.
-rick
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Is there some method to guarantee the uniqueness of WHOIS handles?
> Can I re
Is there some method to guarantee the uniqueness of WHOIS handles?
Can I register affixes somehwere?
I'm currently creating a WHOIS-like database (which might be publicly
accessible one day), and I'd like to avoid handle collisions with
other WHOIS databases.
(I asked a similar questi
Hi,
Thanks for the answer - that was what I expected it too be ;-(
Martin
> -Original Message-
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11. november 2001 09:40
> To: Martin Djernaes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois service
>
>
> I beli
i,
>
> I have been looking in the RFCs, but I doesn't seem to be able to find
> an exact answer. So I'll try drop the question in here "Must a ccTld
> registrar (like dk-hostmaster.dk) supply a whois service?".
>
> The reason I ask, is that whois.dk-hostma
Hi,
I have been looking in the RFCs, but I doesn't seem to be able to find
an exact answer. So I'll try drop the question in here "Must a ccTld
registrar (like dk-hostmaster.dk) supply a whois service?".
The reason I ask, is that whois.dk-hostmaster.dk have been taken our
Holder is a good name for the holders of IP addresses.
Also, RAND can be very Reasonable without hurting the cause of freedom.
But some people are not reasonable, but this is a different problem,
and is unlikely to be resolved in our favour by reasonable people.
Cheers...\Stef
PS: If IP addres
> Seriously, what is the appropriate term: owner, rentee, leaser ?
Assignee?
-=Francois=-
expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily
> the views of SOPAC.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Braden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, 1 October 2001 3:33
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Nimda virus and whois searc
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nimda virus and whois search...
*>
*> While I was implementing a perl script to catch nimda virus on Apache
*> (www.digitalcon.ca/nimda/) and send an e-mail to the owner of the IP, I
It will come as a great surprise to many people to learn th
*>
*> While I was implementing a perl script to catch nimda virus on Apache
*> (www.digitalcon.ca/nimda/) and send an e-mail to the owner of the IP, I
It will come as a great surprise to many people to learn that someone
owns IP. At one point, some eager beavers in the US government thou
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:35:14 +0300, Pekka Savola said:
> - users running traceroute, on incomoing icmp time exceeded messages
> triggering an icmp flood "detection"
> - using a public ftp server, thus generating an ident query
> - using an smtp server, -""-
> - etc.
My personal pet peeve - ge
1 October 2001 3:55
To: Franck Martin
Subject: Re: Nimda virus and whois search...
Please seriously consider not sending automated email in this way.
You're not making matters better by creating a storm of email messages
in addition to an already existing storm of HTTP queries. Your
resp
ailed report...
There are some more advanced whois clients which have more knowledge on
where to query and how, e.g. http://freshmeat.net/projects/whois/.
That doesn't say, of course, that there wouldn't be any benefits from
"standardization"...
On the IDS front, I would no
While I was implementing a perl script to catch nimda virus on Apache (www.digitalcon.ca/nimda/) and send an e-mail to the owner of the IP, I realised it is rather difficult to automatise whois searches.
First of all there are 3 repositories of IP networks: ARIN, APNIC and RIPE. There is no
[ Apologies for duplicate mails ]
RIPE Whois RPSL Migration
The RIPE Database re-implementation project is nearing completion. A key
feature of the new database is the implementation of RPSL, to replace the
old RIPE-181 standard.
RPSL is similar, but not identical, to RIPE-181. The RIPE NCC
Ray Yang wrote:
> I'm just wondering -- my whois command doesn't turn up contact information
> for domains anymore. What's going on? I get a registrar's name instead
I got tired of following the redirects, so I hacked up a wrapper script (/bin/sh) to
d
Martin,
don't expect things to get better about UCE, your registration information
is now available for sale. all registrars are required to sell their whois
databases for a maximum of $10K, per the latest ICANN/DOC/NSI agreements.
-rick
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Martin Essenburg wrote:
>
I think it is a good idea because companies are using the whois info as a
mailing database for there products. I get a ton of snail mail from this
MJE
Martin Essenburg
MCI WorldCom - Global Accounts East
727-431-5907
Vnet: 977-5907
Pager: 1-888-270-9268 (2way)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
> Network Solutions, had a stroke of mind power and decided to
> change the server output format on 12/01.
As NSI explained, the change of format was dictated by ICANN (which was in
response to the other registrars demands). Blaming NSI is inappropriate.
Rgds,
-drc
>I'm just wondering -- my whois command doesn't turn up contact information
>for domains anymore. What's going on? I get a registrar's name instead
In case anyone's interested, I wrote a little Perl script to sort of streamline
command line whois, because I
Network Solutions, had a stroke of mind power and decided to
change the server output format on 12/01. Don't you just love
how out of the six fields listed that three of them are advertisements
for Network Solutions? Like we need to have their URL listed.
Use the Geektools whois dat
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 12:40:15PM -0500, Ray Yang wrote:
> Hi:
> I'm just wondering -- my whois command doesn't turn up contact
information
> for domains anymore. What's going on? I get a registrar's name instead
First off... Whois merely
>I'm just wondering -- my whois command doesn't turn up contact information
>for domains anymore. What's going on? I get a registrar's name instead
NSI changed WHOIS servers on 1 December. Use
whois -h whois.networksolutions.com
Robert G. Ferrell
Internet Tech
that is because, there are now several competitive and
accredited tld registrars. see www.internic.net for more info.
so.. just do:
whois -h whois.networksolutions.com domain.name
whois.networksolutions.com can obviously be substituted with
another registrar's whois serve
Hi:
I'm just wondering -- my whois command doesn't turn up contact information
for domains anymore. What's going on? I get a registrar's name instead
Ray
69 matches
Mail list logo
