[Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Mar 15 20:58:30 UTC 2012
I see what you mean, tx Olof!
:
> Hi Kathy,
> I think that would be inappropriate, given the commenter's decision NOT to convey it by using the public comments box....
> Best
> Olof
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:51 PM
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report
> Thanks Olof, could you kindly post these comments to our public comment box?
> Tx you and so many thanks for all your help and support and guidance, Kathy
>
> :
>> Dear Review Team Members,
>> Please find some offline comments to the report, received today, for your attention and considerations.
>> Very best regards
>> Olof
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at crankycanuck.ca]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38 PM
>> To: Olof Nordling
>> Subject: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report
>>
>> Dear Mr Nordling,
>>
>> In my public posting commenting on the recent WHOIS review team
>> report, I mentioned that I found some nits. I'm sending them to you
>> as the staff support for the team. These are some (occasionally very
>> serious) technical errors that I found while reading the Whois Policy Review Team report. I didn't include them in my public posting because I thought they might distract from the more substantive issues I wanted to focus on there. But I urge the team to fix these errors; they seriously undermine the credibility of the report. Please feel free to share this mail as widely as you wish.
>>
>> - The description of domain names in the Executive Summary is
>> either completely wrong, or a mistaken and misleading attempt to
>> gloss over complexities about the DNS name space. This might not
>> matter except that, if people are to take seriously proposals for
>> better management of domain name registration data, the details of
>> what a domain name is really need to be correct. Rather than
>> fixing this, the entire passage might be removed without any harm:
>> someone who cannot already recognize a DNS name will probably not
>> care about WHOIS at all.
>>
>> - The introduction of WHOIS at the end of section B seems to
>> suggest that WHOIS is for domain name registration data; but the
>> WHOIS protocol has also historically been used for number
>> resources (as Appendix G states), and that history may be part of
>> the reason why the protocol has some of the limitations it has.
>> This could be fixed with a minor adjustment to the description.
>>
>> - The mention of alternatives to the WHOIS protocol in Chapter 5
>> (footnote 17, page 44) talks about CRISP. But CRISP is not a
>> protocol, and RFC 3707 is in fact a requirements document -- one
>> that, if its specification were met, would address many of the
>> issues with the WHOIS protocol and permit a better service. The
>> IRIS protocol (RFC 3982) was the development that followed from
>> the CRISP requirements. The narrow issue could be fixed by
>> altering the reference. (At a more substantive level, IRIS was
>> what resulted the last time the Internet community determined that
>> WHOIS was not the answer to registration data problems, and the
>> report might be stronger if it explored why those previous
>> attempts to replace WHOIS did not succeed.)
>>
>> In Appendix G:
>>
>> - The example IP address is not in any normal presentation format
>> for IP addresses, and it is very hard to see how it could be an IP
>> address in any of the more obscure ways of writing IP addresses.
>>
>> - DNS is not only used to translate names to numbers.
>>
>> - The entire discussion of whois lookup in a thin-registry context
>> ignores the way whois referral works, and appears to suggest that
>> people who do not know how to operate the tool ought to be able to
>> operate it without learning how.
>>
>> In Appendix H:
>>
>> - The definitions of A-label and LDH-label most certainly do not
>> overlap.
>>
>> - WHOIS was not originally specified in RFC 954, but in RFC 812,
>> published in 1982.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at crankycanuck.ca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
More information about the Rt4-whois
mailing list