Subject: Re: Fwd: US Government Extends Network Solutions Cooperative Agreement through September 2000 (fwd)

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 18:33:00 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, "Rick H. Wess
on" writes:
>
>hi,
>
>My question is simple, whom is going to design the "shared" interface
>to this system, and is this design going to be going through the IETF
>process. or will it be designed wholesale by NSI?

That's a very good question.  Note that the IETF per se does not, in general,
decide to design protocols.  Rather, individuals bring proposals for working
groups to the IETF, per our usual process.  This strikes me as clearly
relevant to the IETF, and I personally (and speaking for myself, not the
IAB) see no reason why a properly-crafted charter would be rejected.

Getting the relevant players to buy in is another matter, of course.
And the schedule -- starting shared operation in about 6 months -- is
quite aggressive, and almost certainly too tight for our usual process.
It might be worth everyone's while to look at what CORE built, and use
the intervening time to adapt their server side to NSI's back-end processes.

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:01:10 -0700 (PDT)

Steven,

I was hoping to prevent the use of a proprity protocol. too late. I am
appaled that this protocol could be licensed, its not the way these things
should be handled. If it was a protocol developed within the IETF it would
prevent such a disaster.

in the updated coperative agreement...

> NSI agrees to license the Shared Registration System protocol,
> associated documentation, and reference implementation to Accredited
> Registrars, on reasonable terms and conditions approved by the USG, such
> approval not to be unreasonably withheld, that are designed to promote
> the development of robust competition for the provisions of registrar
> services.

regards,

-rick

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:01:10 -0700 (PDT)

Steven,

regards,

-rick

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:55:29 +0200

>should be handled. If it was a protocol developed within the IETF it would

It might happen that NSI do understand that protocols dealing with these 
kind of things on the Internet should be designed/reviewed in the IETF 
process. That might be the easiest way for NSI to _not_ be blamed for 
creating a proprietary protocol.

At the last IETF, a BOF was held (metad), which started to discuss issues 
regarding protocols that could replace, and be the continuation of Whois, 
RWhois, Whois++ etc.

Please see the minutes from that BOF, or contact the chair of the BOF, 
Michael Mealling, for more information.

Note also that discussions regarding the RWhois protocol deployment has 
been held in the IETF.

    Patrik Fältström
    Area Director, Applications Area

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:55:29 +0200

Patrik Fältström

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:32:36 -0400 (EDT)

http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment11.html :
>SPECIAL AWARD CONDITIONS . NCR-9218742 . Amendment No. 11 
>Parties: Department of Commerce (USG), Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI)
>Effective Date: October 7, 1998

 The above quoted document URL reflects
 a modification and agreement between
 the US gov't and NSI. It is in no way
 binding in detail or in general intent
 upon the Free Community Network (FCN)
 or any other registry or registrar in
 future. However we demand equal access
 to Root Servers and equal abiltiy to
 carry forward our plans as independant
 Domain Name Services Providers either
 from the United States Government or
 "Newco" (AKA ICANN).

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network . [email-masked] . http://fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:32:36 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Allisat

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT)

Patrick,

What i was atempting to say is that there should be an open protocol
for the interaction of registrar/registry.

> regarding protocols that could replace, and be the continuation of Whois, 

I understand that metad was looking at query protocols and did not get
very far. I am hoping for a descrete protocol that documents the
interaction of a registrar the the repository (registry) and not
focus on respresentation of the respoitory to the general public
(r)whois(++)

I hope that CORE will publish their protocol as an ID.

-Rick

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT)

Patrick,

-Rick

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT)

Patrick,

-Rick

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT)

Patrick,

-Rick

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:47:25 +0200

>for the interaction of registrar/registry.

I just wanted to let you know that I maybe were more optimistic than you 
regarding the invention of such a protocol.

I agree that the metad BOF did not come far, but on the other hand, being 
able to limit the scope of a project is also a move in the right direction 
:-)

I also hope that CORE will publish the SRS protocol as an I-D.

   paf
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Researcher                             Email: [email-masked]
Tele2 AB                                        URL: http://paf.se
Borgarfjordsgatan 16, Kista, Sweden      PGP Key ID: 0xBD236602

   In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
   but in practice, there is.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:47:25 +0200

paf