Subject: Re: Re: [Enum] CRISP

From: Sabine Dolderer/Denic <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:31:38 +0200

Hello Patrik,

On 23.07.2003 23:12 Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> On onsdag, jul 23, 2003, at 16:10 Europe/Stockholm, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > Do the DNS Delegation Police ever use the whois
> > contact data when they come across dead or lame name servers?
>
> I use whois in DNS-problematic cases. When the SOA information is "not
> enough" (doesn't lead to anything).
>
> Last when trying to save a very-broken-TLD and
> undo-this-transfer-of-domain-between-registrars-please situation when
> all admin/tech info was the old, but only the domain name holder (and
> registrar) had changed.
>
> As I stated in a mail some time ago...in Sweden we are interested in a
> CRISP-like function where it is possible to know _to_who_ a delegation
> in the ENUM tree of +46 is supposed to go. It is very good to have both
> the map and the reality, because when they differ, one of them is wrong.
>
> Note, I am _NOT_ talking about having registrant information in this
> system I talk about.

just for clarification.

Which data you plan to publish in the Swedish enum trial via whois/crisp

- the holder of the enum domain/e.164 number = registrant?

or

- the maintainer of the nameserver to whom the enum domain is delegated?

and if the second case is true. Only the information for the primary dns
(how do you identify them) or all nameservers of the delegation?

And which information for all cases exactly (name, address, phone, fax,
email, ...)

Sabine

>
> paf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>
Viele Grüße
Sabine Dolderer

--
Sabine  Dolderer
DENIC eG
Wiesenhüttenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt

eMail: [email-masked]
Fon: +49 69 27235 0
Fax: +49 69 27235 235

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:11:04 +0200

On torsdag, jul 24, 2003, at 09:31 Europe/Stockholm, Sabine 

> - the holder of the enum domain/e.164 number = registrant?

No. I don't think so.

> - the maintainer of the nameserver to whom the enum domain is 

Yes.

> (how do you identify them) or all nameservers of the delegation?

I don't know yet. We are exactly at the point in the project where 
things like this is discussed.

> And which information for all cases exactly (name, address, phone, fax,

I have no idea. I think the project will look at what is stored today 
in DNS for DNS operations, and start with that.

But, I am only one of many participants in the Swedish ENUM trial. I am 
happy to continue to report our findings.

The only thing I know of so far is that it is interesting 
(operationally) to know what parties are involved.

    paf

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:25:20 +0800

>> - the holder of the enum domain/e.164 number = registrant?

Agree.

>> - the maintainer of the nameserver to whom the enum domain is delegated?

Disagree. I dont think this should be publish. Ask the CC registry if 
you need the info.

What we do need is the WHOIS/IRIS info for the CC registry which is 
already published in RIPE-NCC.

-James Seng

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:55:13 -0700

>>>>> "James" == James Seng <[email-masked]> writes:

    >>> - the maintainer of the nameserver to whom the enum domain is
    >>> delegate=d
    >> =20 Yes.

    James> Disagree. I dont think this should be publish. Ask the CC
    James> registry if=20 you need the info.

This may not be possible. It assumes the Tier-1 registry holds that
info. [Let's use the ETSI terminology to avoid confusion with ccTLD
operators.] That registry might not have delegated a number to an end
user. There could be intermediate delegations: eg DDI blocks for a
large company or operator-specific chunks of the number space. Maybe
there is a discrete registry for a given area code, etc, etc.

    James> What we do need is the WHOIS/IRIS info for the CC registry
    James> which is=20 already published in RIPE-NCC.

Who's "we"?

Even without RIPE's whois server this information can be obtained,
albeit in a painful way. ITU can point you at the official ENUM
contact for a National Administration. That official will be able to
identify the technical contact for the Tier-1 registry. Or identify
someone who can do that.

BTW, Patrik's recent remarks aside, nobody has yet come forward with
reasons or justifications for whois/crisp for ENUM. And I've still to
see any data which shows how often existing whois data -- not
necessarily under e164.arpa! -- is accessed to solve operational
issues. I would really like this WG answer the question "do we have a
real need for whois/crisp/whatever?" before jumping headlong into a
whole bunch of nasty issues like data protection, privacy, protocol
holy wars and so on. Where are the Delegation Police and how much
reliance do they have on whois?

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:07:45 +0200

> reliance do they have on whois?

not being part of that Department, but sometimes hunting down DNS problems,
occasionally even on an automated base, I'd rather use the whois data from
the address registry than that from the domain name registry.

-Peter

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:27:00 +0200

>     James> registry if=20 you need the info.

How are you supposed to ask the Tier-1 registry? This is exactly where 
(from my point of view) CRISP comes into play.

> identify the technical contact for the Tier-1 registry. Or identify

But, how do you send the query to whoever? Call him via the phone? Send 
postcard?

Just because ENUM involve so many players, it might be interesting to 
know, for operational reasons, who the player in question is.

> issues.

As I said, I have rescued one registrant in the .com domain, and one 
TLD (will not disclose which) during the last 2 months with the help 
from Whois data. That is just one example.

> I would really like this WG answer the question "do we have a

"Whois" (the service) is the only place where one can get to know the 
admin and technical contact for a domain. In DNS you only see the 
technical contact, and possibly not even that. You only see some 
information about the one which runs the DNS for the zone.

Just seeing (if you can get the SOA in the first place) what the SOA is 
for the zone or parent is definitely not enough for operations of 
something as important as DNS. One really want to know the admin 
contact.

    paf

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:44:28 -0700

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Koch <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> holy wars and so on. Where are the Delegation Police and how
    >> much reliance do they have on whois?

    Peter> not being part of that Department, but sometimes hunting
    Peter> down DNS problems, occasionally even on an automated base,
    Peter> I'd rather use the whois data from the address registry
    Peter> than that from the domain name registry.

Me too. People have more of an incentive to make sure their address
contact data at the RIR is correct and up to date. But how often is
"sometimes" and is it reasonable to assume that an ENUM whois would be
accessed so frequently? [Maybe it'd be more, maybe less. Who knows?] I
suspect there will be little need for whois in ENUM because the zone
files and name servers will generally be in the hands of competent
people. However it would be better to have some real data instead of a
gut feel.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:21:32 +0800

> (from my point of view) CRISP comes into play.

Email, Phone, or Snail Mail and a justification for the info you need.

-James Seng

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:23:06 -0400

At 11:11 AM 7/24/2003 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>On torsdag, jul 24, 2003, at 09:31 Europe/Stockholm, Sabine Dolderer/Denic 
>wrote:
>
>>just for clarification.
>>

The requirements coming out of the US ENUM forum  do not suggest that CRISP 
would be used for number holder/registrant but only for ....

>>- the maintainer of the nameserver to whom the enum domain is delegated?

Precisely...

>I don't know yet. We are exactly at the point in the project where things 
>like this is discussed.

We're not sure about that as well...

In any event t has been discussed extensively in the US and the conclusion 
was that classic 43 WHOIS is unacceptable.

All of this BTW is national trial specific there is no global requirement 
here at all.

>I have no idea. I think the project will look at what is stored today in 
>DNS for DNS operations, and start with that.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
  <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:33:00 -0400

At
>reasons or justifications for whois/crisp for ENUM.

Well thats like asking why do we have whois at all?

In order to preserve the security and stability of the Internet it is 
necessary to have authoritive directories of who is responsible for the 
proper functioning of name servers responsible for specific domains.

That the requirement here.

>  And I've still to

Well again these issues are coming out of various national ENUM trial or 
operational requirements that are beginning to surface. We are trying to 
provide appropriate technical guidance to those trials and that is within 
our charter.

Now some national ENUM adminstrations may require E.164 holder/registrant 
data but that is not our business.  As of now I have seen none ... and its 
seems rational we have white page phone data available everywhere.

Going to Andrew Newton's earlier post ..yes an applicability statement 
might be useful here but we seem to know why whois was useful in the first 
place.

I personally want this work to go forward there is the larger issue of when 
the CRISP WG formally decides on the IRIS vs FIRS issue but I want it to be 
perfectly clear that I'm not neutral on that debate. I prefer IRIS to FIRS 
for any number of reasons you can view on that mail list.

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:37:29 -0700

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> BTW, Patrik's recent remarks aside, nobody has yet come forward
    >> with reasons or justifications for whois/crisp for ENUM.

    Richard> Well thats like asking why do we have whois at all?

Exactly!

    Richard> In order to preserve the security and stability of the
    Richard> Internet it is necessary to have authoritive directories
    Richard> of who is responsible for the proper functioning of name
    Richard> servers responsible for specific domains.

Indeed. But are we *sure* whois or crisp is the answer? Maybe it's
enough for the registry to capture the customer data and make that
available on a need-to-know basis, for instance if a delegation is
lame? Even then, why should the registry care if my ENUM name servers
are broken unless they have a contract with me to provide DNS service?

    Richard> That the requirement here.

To some extent, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Personally I'm not
convinced of the value of whois-like info. That's why it would be nice
to see some hard data on its actual worth. I'm also wondering how much
divergence there is between the DNS and whois "databases" as well as
the amount of effort that will be needed to keep these synchronised.
Do the benefits really justify the costs? And are we going down the
whois/crisp path "because we've always done domain names this way"?