Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 10 July 2019 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB5B1200DE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14gDrCSB06Wo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E48C12010C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1hlCac-0000FUC; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:24:54 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hlCac-0000FUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: John Bambenek <jcb=40bambenekconsulting.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <1CA7BF1B-DF50-443B-9219-55259835FE23@bambenekconsulting.com> <233E0AD8-97FE-466C-9B6C-D7A376031C3B@rfc1035.com> <93244821-6C22-457F-BA06-CF43CA9FD12B@bambenekconsulting.com> <EDE98437-E0B8-4B2E-8AA5-2F6B0079CE8B@hopcount.ca> <0ece2408-a1ec-fa5f-f8d1-ff65572de1ed@bambenekconsulting.com> <B520D17D-F258-41C3-97DD-3CE5C3A8E952@hopcount.ca> <6F0B44AA-902D-46E9-9E3B-DB88F5AC1419@isc.org> <A7A3C5BB-2705-47F2-9870-19552756423B@bambenekconsulting.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:41:23 -0500 ." <A7A3C5BB-2705-47F2-9870-19552756423B@bambenekconsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:24:51 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/56Nvrxb9zuGjxGLybu3pyZIu8s8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:25:02 -0000

> Im not sure the point
> aside of illustrating if there is no response for the domain records
> by the auth server that there would also be no response for a _whois
> record. Thats true.
> 
> 1) Using _whois is completely optional, like SPF or any other
> record.  2) I cant envision much legitimate need to contact a domain
> owner for something that doesnt exist (aside of domain renewal spam
> or trying to buy the domain).
> 
> Am I missing something?

I read this discussion from the point of view of someone how is very happy
with the result of GDRP in this area.

With that in mind, it seems that this proposal doesn't address any technical
issues with whois.

Where whois allows for querying of contact information associated with a 
domain, this proposal does something similar.

Of course, whois has various technical issues, but it makes sense to first
try to solve those technical issues within the whois system. And only when 
it is clear that certain issues cannot be solved look for a different
protocol. (And I mean cannot be solved for technical reasons, but because 
of lack of consensus)

As far as I know, there is no issue with whois and the GDRP when it comes
to voluntarily publishing information in whois. This draft clearly 
advocates voluntary sharing of this information. 

As the Section 1 suggests, whois works.

So it seems to me that this draft does not solve a technical problem
(or at most a minor one, 'internationalization')