Subject: [Ietf-not43] CRISP @ RIP43

From: [email-masked] (Edward Lewis)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:15:47 -0400

I attended the RIPE 43 DNR WG meeting last week.  I was asked to 
submit some notes on a discussion of CRISP that arose there.  So here 
goes:

...

There were a few comments after an introductory (what is CRISP?) 
presentation.  I apologize for the roughness of the notes, hopefully 
there will be meeting minutes posted on the RIPE website sooner or 
later, but at least I'm getting these notes out quickly.

Check http://www.ripe.net or, eventually
     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/index.html
to see if there are "official" notes.

The first three were from one person

1) There's a perception that CRISP and PROVREG are stomping on each 
other.  One particular comment is that there is a "check" command in 
the two with two different results - and this bad thing is cause by 
the fact that there are two chartered efforts defining how a registry 
interfaces with the outside world.

I answered that concern by saying that the two groups are very 
different and in particular, the check commands are used for 
different things.  PROVREG's check is to see if you can "buy" the 
name, CRISP's is to find out who's spamming you.

2) Finding the appropriate server in CRISP is already solved by the SRV RR.

My response - yes, the mechanics are there, but there's no client 
that can use them.  Right now, whois clients are generally little 
more than telnet clients, hence, they aren't currently capable of 
making use of the mechanics.

3) I forget the third - the jet lag impact on short term memory and all.

Another commenter (hard to hear) was concerned that there's confusion 
of the role of whois and dns versus the registry database.  I don't 
think that comment went far though.  I.e., DNS is not a registry's 
database, just one "report" from it.

Another person stood up and protested the fact that the IETF was 
standardizing protocols that could be used to tell registries how to 
operate.  A respondent said - hey, the protocols are just that, it's 
up to the operator requirementers (e.g./i.e. ICANN) to know what's 
appropriate.  (I would have said the same.)

Like I say, hopefully there'll be official minutes too...
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:35:17 +0200

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 09:15:47AM -0400,
 Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 58 lines which said:

> later,

Not yet, apparently.

> name, CRISP's is to find out who's spamming you.

The difference is not so important, for instance, both could be used
to have the status of a domain name, which is sent by Crisp's protocol
as well as by Provreg's protocol.
 
> making use of the mechanics.

Since it will be necessary to write a completely new client anyway,
for the Crisp's protocol, adding SRV support would not be the most
difficult thing.
 
> 3) I forget the third 

The third one was not about the charters of the two WG but about the
actual protocols EPP and IRIS. It was a concern that the two WG are
making new protocols from scratch instead on relying on an existing
infrastructure, like Web services (XML-RPC or SOAP). (The LDAP
proposal in crisp is of course immune from this criticism.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:23:00 -0400

This is a MIME-formatted message.  If you see this text it means that your
E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages.

--=_zark-27290-1032536176-0001-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> as well as by Provreg's protocol.

This flat-out ignores the use cases.  They differ by both audience and 
function.

> for the Crisp's protocol, adding SRV support would not be the most

Both LW and IRIS make use of SRV records.

> proposal in crisp is of course immune from this criticism.)

My comments regarding SOAP and XML-RPC are in the IRIS core draft.

-andy

--=_zark-27290-1032536176-0001-2
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

--=_zark-27290-1032536176-0001-2--

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:56:52 +0200

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:23:00AM -0400,
 Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote 

> My comments regarding SOAP and XML-RPC are in the IRIS core draft.

Yes, I noticed. Allow me, not to re-express my opnion about it, but
just to fix an error in the comments:

>Appendix C. Considerations on XML-based RPC's
>
>   Furthermore, XML-RPC and SOAP 1.0 are bound to HTTP. 

XML-RPC, yes (there are extensions but quite drafty) but it is clearly
wrong for SOAP, both in theory (the specification) and in practice
(the Perl implementation, one of the most common, allow many
transports).

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:22:19 -0400

--=_zark-5265-1032870956-0001-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>  Furthermore, XML-RPC and SOAP 1.0 are bound to HTTP. 

Note the version number.

-andy

--=_zark-5265-1032870956-0001-2

--=_zark-5265-1032870956-0001-2--