[registrars] [Ietf-not43] DRAFT bof proposal (fwd)

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

FYI

read the proposal, this could eventually effect registrars.

-rick

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:49:28 -0500
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@research.netsol.com>
To: ietf-not43@lists.research.netsol.com
Cc: Andrew Newton <anewton@research.netsol.com>
Subject: [Ietf-not43] DRAFT bof proposal

Howdy,

Following on some discussions that have been happening in various
technical forums, Andy Newton & I are putting together a proposal
for a BoF at the Minneapolis IETF.  The theory is that there is
actually a scoped problem here, and it's solvable.

I've attached the current bof proposal -- comments welcome.

Thanks,
Leslie.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
leslie@verisignlabs.com

VeriSign Applied Research
------------------------------------------------------------
Cross-Registry Information Service Protocol (CRISP)
===================================================

BoF Chair:  Ted Hardie

Mailing list:  ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
Archive/Subscription:
   https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43


Description:

The goal of this BoF is to understand the need and discuss
the creation of a working group to create or select a protocol for 
specific administrative directory services provided by registries.  
Backwards compatibility with RFC 954 (WHOIS) is a non-goal.


Motivation:

The expansion and growth of the Internet has seen the registry function
of a traditionally centralized and managed Network Information Center
become the responsibility of various autonomous, functionally disparate,
and globally distributed Internet registries. With the broadening
number of Internet registries, the uses of their administrative
directory services has expanded from the original and traditional use
of the WHOIS protocol to include: the use of whois outside the scope
its specification; formal and informal definitions of syntax;
undocumented security mechanisms; the use of non-standard protocols, 
etc.

Requirements have been gathered, straw proposals are on the table,
and the purpose of this BoF is to determine how to proceed to
specifying a new standard service (based on existing protocols
where possible), to support the universal, common needs of the
specified Internet registries and their related communities. The
requirements are of both the current use of these directory services
and the desired need of new function based on input from relevant
forums. These requirements are not specific to any protocol.

BoF Agenda:

    1. Scribe volunteer
    2. Agenda bash
    3. Discussion of requirements
        . draft-newton-ir-dir-requirements-00.txt
    4. Overview of straw proposals
        . draft-hall-ldap-whois-00.txt
        . draft-newton-xdap-01.txt
        . draft-newton-xdap-domdir-01.txt
        . draft-newton-xdap-ipdir-01.txt
    5. Charter bash




Background reading:

   Requirements:
    draft-newton-ir-dir-requirements-00.txt (coming soon)

   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



Straw Charter Proposal:


The expansion and growth of the Internet has seen the registry function
of a traditionally centralized and managed Network Information Center
become the responsibility of various autonomous, functionally disparate,
and globally distributed Internet registries. With the broadening
number of Internet registries, the uses of their administrative
directory services has expanded from the original and traditional use
of the WHOIS protocol to include: the use of whois outside the scope
its specification; formal and informal definitions of syntax;
undocumented security mechanisms; the use of non-standard protocols, 
etc.

The purpose of the CRISP Working Group is to create or select
a protocol for accessing the administrative directory services 
provided by registries.  



Specific design considerations include:

o Backwards compatibility with RFC 954 (WHOIS) is a non-goal.

o Information must be managed in a distributed fashion (e.g., at
  different registries), while it is desirable to be able to
  locate (or find) the source of authoritative data no matter
  where it is stored (i.e., distributed storage, global navigation).

o The service must support the concept of priviledged and non-
  priviledged data (although the definition of what is priviledged
  is not within scope for this work)


The service definition will define: 

o specific data types and queries to be supported in the global service

o standard process for naming or locating authoritative servers 

o expression of input query 

o expression of result sets 

o standard expression of error conditions 


Deliverables: 

o Finalized requirements document for the CRISP service

o Document specifying (the use of) a protocol for providing CRISP
  standard service.


Input documents:
    draft-newton-ir-dir-requirements-00.txt (coming soon)


Goals and Milestones:

 Jun 02    Submit requirements document as an Informational RFC 
           
 Sep 02    Submit first draft of protocol (use) specification

 Jan 03    Submit revised protocol (use) specification document
           as Proposed Standard.
           
 Feb 03    Close working group.