[tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco?

[Smith, Bill]

On Mar 7, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Dave Piscitello wrote:


On 3/7/11 2:45 PM, "Jay Daley" <jay at nzrs.net.nz<mailto:jay at nzrs.net.nz>> wrote:
[snipped]

The only two that cannot be addressed this way are:

- authentication, which is the feature where I think we are talking about a
very different protocol from WHOIS

Agree.

Why would we consider requiring authentication when accurate WHOIS information is available to the public?


- access control, which most WHOIS providers have implemented at the TCP/IP
level

Without source address validation, IP level access control is not
sufficient. Even with IP level access control, the granularity of access
control is arguably less than one might want in a future incarnation of a
Whois service. For example, an IP level access control does not accommodate
a future policy that might block a user of group X from accessing to a
subset of registration data elements {b} while allowing a user of group Y
access to those elements. A robust directory service protocol ought to
accommodate this.



With respect, I trust we aren't talking about a directory service for the Internet public.


_______________________________________________
tech-whois mailing list
tech-whois at icann.org<mailto:tech-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois