Transcript Uwho Requirements Gathering Andrew Newton Mark Kosters Leslie Daigle VeriSign Labs APNIC 13, March 2002 Mar-2002

Uwho Requirements Gathering
Andrew Newton
Mark Kosters
Leslie Daigle
VeriSign Labs
APNIC 13, March 2002
1
Mar-2002
UWhat?
• Universal Whois
• VeriSign has committed undertaking in agreement with
ICANN
• Formal public consultations
– business, intellectual property holders (Aug/01)
– civil liberties, other ngo’s (Nov/01)
– international input (Nov/01)
• Informal public consultations
–
–
–
–
–
–
2
RIPE 40 (Oct/01)
NANOG 23 (Oct/01)
RIPE 41 (Jan/02)
NANOG 24 (Feb/02)
APRICOT 2002 (Mar/02)
APNIC 13 (Mar/02)
Mar-2002
Community at a Glance
• If we tried to include every aspect of every
type of whois service (past or present) in the
world, we would never get any work completed.
The scope would be too large.
• The subset is the community of people that
“administer” the Internet:
–
–
–
–
–
3
Network operators and service providers
Registry operators
Implementers of software (for this community)
Registrars, Certificate Authorities, etc.
IPR Holders, Law Enforcement, other government agencies,
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), etc…
Mar-2002
So is Harmony Communal?
• Not always
– Laws applying to various network and registry operators vary
from country to country.
– Some policies may conflict with laws elsewhere.
– Registry operators don’t always see eye-to-eye.
– Registrars don’t always see eye-to-eye.
– … the list goes on…
• We must provide the mechanism, not the policy.
– Because it is not our job.
– And we would never finish if we did.
4
Mar-2002
Some of the Potential Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structured queries and results
Referrals and referral-path authority
NIC Handle references
Standards
Ease of implementation and minimal re-invention
Machine readability
Decentralization and one-stop-shopping.
Privacy and access by IPR holders and law enforcement.
Adaptable to many policies and laws.
• After 30+ years of “Internet Science”, it can be done.
5
Mar-2002
Discussion
When we list out some of the
requirements, they cause us to ask more
questions?
Your input is needed.
6
Mar-2002
Structured Queries & Results
• Only routing has a standard – RPSL.
• What should domain registries use?
• What will they be willing to use?
– PROVREG is moving forward with XML.
• If another schema language (for example XML), what
should happen to RPSL?
– Would it get XML-ized (components broken into XML elements)?
– There is precedence in XML for use of other grammars.
–
–
XML Digital Signatures can use X.509 certs as-is.
W3C even defined parts of Xpath with a non-XML grammar.
• Queries vary from server to server, especially for the
domain registries.
– Solved by common schema language and standard schemas.
• On settling on a set of standard schema data models:
– Which current ones work well?
– What needs to be added?
7
Mar-2002
A Unified Protocol/Service
• The registry operators are starting to drift
apart.
–
–
–
–
At least two TLD operators flirting with LDAP.
There is nothing like RPSL for domains.
What about Rwhois?
ICANN registrars being told to use XML for escrow.
• Is it time to address this problem?
• Or should the naming registries and address and
routing registries be allowed to drift apart in
how they deliver their “whois” service?
8
Mar-2002
Needs of Network Operators
• The most consistent “end-users” of all 3 registry types in
terms of frequency and depth of need.
• If their needs aren’t met, then the Internet doesn’t run.
If their needs aren’t met, the needs of the other endusers won’t matter.
– Disagreement?
• Requirements of the whois service:
–
–
–
–
9
Machine consumable?
Easy to find tools to work with these services?
Easier referencing of objects from one service to another?
“One-stop-shopping” - a centralized view of a decentralized
system?
Mar-2002
Burdens on Network Operators
• What changes or new features to whois can be
done to help with requests from IPR holders
and law enforcement?
• Is there anything the whois services of the
registries can do to ease other burdens?
• How will privacy restrictions impact work?
• How should “handles” be handled?
10
Mar-2002
Implementation
• What types of client tools are needed by
network operators?
• Is there a desire for a set of client tools that
are open source reference implementations?
• What is the comfort level in the community
with taking open source tools and adapting them
to meet specific needs?
11
Mar-2002
Conclusion
• Your comments, opinions, and ideas are welcome.
– http://uwho.verisignlabs.com/
• Further reading:
– Requirements:
–
draft-newton-ir-dir-requirements-00.txt
–
–
draft-newton-ldap-whois-00.txt
draft-hall-ldap-whois-00.txt
–
–
–
draft-newton-xdap-01.txt
draft-newton-xdap-domdir-01.txt
draft-newton-xdap-ipdir-01.txt
–
–
draft-campbell-whois-00.txt
draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt
– LDAP proposals:
– XML proposal:
– The State of Whois:
• Tentative Action
– Cross-Registry Information Service Protocol (CRISP) BoF proposed
for IETF 53
12
Mar-2002