[Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of IRIS protocol and IRIS dependent services
"Carl Taswell" <ctaswell@telegenetics.net> Thu, 24 January 2008 19:07 UTC
Return-path: <crisp-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI7Qc-0005lg-L7; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:07:58 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI7Qa-0005lX-F0 for crisp@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:07:56 -0500
Received: from dukecmmtao03.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.70]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI7QZ-0008Oj-R1 for crisp@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:07:56 -0500
Received: from ManRay ([68.4.188.194]) by dukecmmtao03.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20080124190755.RRPZ27246.dukecmmtao03.coxmail.com@ManRay>; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:07:55 -0500
From: Carl Taswell <ctaswell@telegenetics.net>
To: crisp@ietf.org, iris@lists.verisignlabs.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:07:57 -0800
Organization: Global TeleGenetics, Inc.
Message-ID: <01aa01c85ebc$6f3e36f0$4dbaa4d0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AchevG4UIIHG0B16R/+BrBwPjnCppQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87
Cc:
Subject: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of IRIS protocol and IRIS dependent services
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ctaswell@telegenetics.net
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org
Thanks to all of you who responded to my previous email. I hope that all interested will continue the discussion. In essence, my questions relate to the future of IRIS and the rate of adoption expected by its original creators and developers. This email is intended to provide a summary of current status together with my questions which follow. OPEN SOURCE IMPLEMENTATIONS: No currently active projects. The initial pilot project led by David Blacka at Verisign has information at http://www.verisign.com/research/Internet_Registry_Information_Service/index .html with code available at http://svn.verisignlabs.com/main/iris/ Another pilot project reported by Andrei Robachevsky has information at http://www.ripe.net/db/iris-pilot/ Both David and Andrei have indicated that there is little if any interest in maintaining these projects. Further searches at codeplex.com and sourceforge.net return, respectively, two and seventeen different projects all with the name IRIS but none of them are related to the IRIS of IETF CRISP. COMMERCIAL IMPLEMENTATIONS: Marcos Sanz reports that DENIC will make available DCHK-type service as soon as it reaches RFC status. DENIC provides information on IRIS at http://www.denic.de/en/faqs/detail_152.html Implementation of DCHK-type service implies use of IRIS Core (RFC 3981) and DREG (RFC 3982). Also, Sven-Holger Wabnitz reports that DomiNIC plans to offer IRIS service, but apparently, there is not yet any public announcement at their web site at http://www.dominic.de/ since a search there returned no results, and standards implemented in the product description do not yet mention any of the IRIS protocols (unless I missed something). GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1) For those of you who have been active in the CRISP Working Group, do you remain optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral about the future of the IRIS protocol and services? 2) For those of you who are active at registrars, do you expect the rate of adoption of the IRIS-dependent services to accelerate or continue at the current pace? SPECIFIC QUESTIONS: 3) Marcos and Sven-Holger, could you please make more explicit the complete list of IRIS related RFC standards that your companies will be supporting with products or services? 4) Andy Newton explains that the lack of code modularity for common content such as contacts was purposeful in order to prevent dependence of different developments and thereby delays. While I understand the rationale in the past, I also see the need for revisions in the future. Yet April Marine reports that the Working Group will conclude its work with DCHK. So how will any necessary revisions be pursued? From my perspective with my goal of building new and different registry types as extensions of the existing foundation of IRIS protocol and services, it does NOT make sense for all of the registry types to each have individual and separate declarations for contacts because it risks loss of interoperability for exchange of contact information. Presumably interoperability is a major goal of any standards effort. So how can revisions with a re-factoring of the contact information into a separate module be pursued if the Working Group is terminating its work? Is it necessary to create a new Working Group? Or can the current Working Group be continued? 5) Since I have not been an active contributing member of the Working Group in the past, I am not familiar with how it does its work. Stephane Bortzmeyer rightly points out that my question about DREG2 has not yet been answered. If somebody familiar with the story of why DREG2 "went dead" could please offer a few words of explanation that might also shed some light on the matter in a way that would give me a better understanding of how to promote the revisions discussed in the previous question. So what did happen to DREG2 and why? Thanks in advance to all of you, CT ------------------------- Carl Taswell Cel: 916-616-4939 Tel: 949-481-3121 _______________________________________________ Crisp mailing list Crisp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp
- [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of IRIS … Carl Taswell
- Re: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of I… Andrew Newton
- Re: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of I… Marcos Sanz/Denic
- Re: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of I… Sven-Holger Wabnitz
- Re: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of I… Patrick Mevzek