1 / 12

Uwho Requirements Gathering

Uwho Requirements Gathering. Mark Kosters Andrew Newton Leslie Daigle VeriSign Labs NANOG 24 Uwho BOF, Februrary 2002. UWhat?. Universal Whois VeriSign has committed undertaking in agreement with ICANN Formal public consultations business, intellectual property holders (Aug/01)

trevinos
Download Presentation

Uwho Requirements Gathering

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Uwho Requirements Gathering Mark Kosters Andrew Newton Leslie Daigle VeriSign Labs NANOG 24 Uwho BOF, Februrary 2002

  2. 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 • RIPE 40 (Oct/01) • NANOG 23 (Oct/01) • RIPE 41 (Jan/02) • NANOG 24 (Feb/02) • APRICOT 2002 ? (Mar/02)

  3. 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: • 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…

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Discussion When we list out some of the requirements, they cause us to ask more questions? Your input is needed.

  7. 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?

  8. 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. • ARIN has 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?

  9. 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 end-users won’t matter. • Disagreement? • Requirements of the whois service: • 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?

  10. 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?

  11. 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?

  12. Conclusion • Your comments, opinions, and ideas are welcome. • http://uwho.verisignlabs.com/ • Further reading: • Requirements: • draft-newton-ir-dir-requirements-00.txt • LDAP proposals: • draft-newton-ldap-whois-00.txt • draft-hall-ldap-whois-00.txt • XML proposal: • draft-newton-xdap-01.txt • draft-newton-xdap-domdir-01.txt • draft-newton-xdap-ipdir-01.txt • The State of Whois: • draft-campbell-whois-00.txt • draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt

More Related