Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Tue, 09 July 2019 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rubensk@nic.br>
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 993B3120436 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
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 WOjb2lo95ZQa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.nic.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) (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 57BE4120226 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70AA8150D26; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:37:57 -0300 (-03)
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
Received: from mail.nic.br ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.nic.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FceCRUkCJpcP; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:37:57 -0300 (-03)
Received: from rubens.in.registro.br (unknown [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:3a::195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rubensk@nic.br) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ACE4150AF5; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:37:57 -0300 (-03)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1562683077; bh=Efurd3DUw9WdTL8NIoVIPSXKzrvhxa1Cd4o8hMgTvVg=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=VOigSpsobJOBCJ4bt1ERjP/u/MTVSPV4bEm2mV6TTilJjK3LE+e5Ge6HHSysuPFgb Dw2UsbDkf7ZDQMMu8nqEgELgksn8RtYZzguAlMplmYq0dLqn7q6OQU7my/vkUJz4c1 ZlyhGjd4UtrteJDLYSxFDbby1kt816+o+WHSgIfw=
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
Message-Id: <3A0433E0-7A69-4655-A799-DB3A6A8AE8F2@nic.br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C4E9EF2-8E50-41C6-B3A4-0F29FD60955B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 11:37:56 -0300
In-Reply-To: <1CA7BF1B-DF50-443B-9219-55259835FE23@bambenekconsulting.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
To: John Bambenek <jcb=40bambenekconsulting.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <1CA7BF1B-DF50-443B-9219-55259835FE23@bambenekconsulting.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br 0ACE4150AF5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bg8ukNbRYEr4Uu35hMPec6d1u1A>
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 14:38:06 -0000

I like the overall idea, but I believe we should let go the name WHOIS. What about "_contact" for the fields instead of "_whois" ? 
I like the All record as an option. 

I don't agree with your reasoning for this, but we can agree on something to be done for different reasons, too. 

I understand the limitation for domains without DNS servers, or with DNS servers but in clientHold or serverHold status, but I don't think they make this less useful since in most cases where people want to be contacted, they have the domain up. 

What are the interactions between possible record sizes, DNS fragmentation, DNS over TCP blocking ? This might be worthy discussing in the draft. 


Rubens




> Em 8 de jul de 2019, à(s) 18:38:000, John Bambenek <jcb=40bambenekconsulting.com@dmarc.ietf.org> escreveu:
> 
> All-
> 
> In response to ICANN essentially removing most of the fields in WHOIS for domain records, Richard Porter and myself created a draft of an implementation putting these records into DNS TXT records. It would require self-disclosure which mitigates the sticky issues of GDPR et al. Would love to get feedback. 
> 
> Name:        draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns
> Revision:    01
> Title:        Domain Contact Information (WHOIS) over DNS
> Document date:    2019-06-30
> Group:        Individual Submission
> Pages:        13
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns-01.txt <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns-01.txt>
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns/>
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns-01>
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns>
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns-01 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bambenek-porter-dnsop-whois-over-dns-01>
> 
> Abstract:
>   Domain contact information over DNS provides a vehicle for
>   exchanging contact information in a programmatic and reliable
>   manner. DNS has a ubiquitous presence within the internet
>   infrastructure and will act as a reliable publication method for
>   contact information exchange. This RFC provides an agreed upon
>   structure, voluntarily, to publish points of contact for domains.
> 
>   This document outlines the methodology for utilizing DNS TXT records
>   for voluntary publication of various forms of contact. The intended
>   purpose is to provide a faster means of reliable contact for
>   professionals, cyber-defense of domains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> —
> John Bambenek
> 
> On July 1st, 2019, my DGA feeds are converting to a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license which means commercial use will require a license. Contact sales@bambenekconsulting.com <mailto:sales@bambenekconsulting.com> for details
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop