Re: [RAI] [drinks] FW: Global Service Provider ID draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

Just to point out the obvious on this ... if what comes back is you need a verified address attached to the identifier, you will probably get told to go use a CA or something else instead of IANA - IANA is not exactly in the business of verifying address.

And on a note in the other direction - if what they want is exactly like ITAD in every way but they want a new IANA registry called NEW_ITAD, does it really matter if there are two registries? I'm having a hard time figuring out why I would care if there was one or two registries of FCFS numbers ...


On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> FYI .. we are still working this. 
> 
> Its taking a bit more coordination among the affected parties etc. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul
> Kyzivat
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:29 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RAI] [drinks] FW: Global Service Provider ID -
> draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Thank you for finally providing a tangible requirement for a *new* 
> registry, functionally distinguished from the ITAD registry. It makes it 
> much easier to support you.
> 
> How about building the basic data support for the WHOIS mechanism into 
> the proposal, along with a revocation process, a suitable barrier to 
> entry (e.g. fee)?
> 
> [RS> ] I think that would be the next logical step. The marginal barrier to
> entry makes sense to me as well. The key will be who can actually collect
> the fee.  There may be issues with IANA charging directly. We'll need to
> check that out off line. Certainly no one has issues with the way the RIR's
> deal with it.  That may be the model to look at.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 10/4/11 5:43 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:38 PM
>>> To: Richard Shockey
>>> Cc: 'Hadriel Kaplan'; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [RAI] [drinks] FW: Global Service Provider ID -
>>> draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01
>>> 
>>> On 10/4/11 1:34 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>> 
>>>> DNS? I don't get that at all ..except as a ENUM record in a private
>> closed
>>>> RFC 6116 instantiation.  :-)
>>> DNS provides certain things that we might arguably want from a SPID, and
>>> the use cases are actually pretty consistent with the DNS usage
>> guidelines.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those things are:
>>> 
>>> 1) A registry of information that is long-lived but does occasionally
>>> change, where that information is "universally scoped", i.e. applicable
>>> Internet-wide.
>>> 
>>> RS>   Yep .. +1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) A mechanism to query that registry.
>>> 
>>> RS>   Dependant on the size of the registry. No reason you can't
>> periodically poll
>>> for a flat file. Works for the root!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) Dynamic propagation of changes to that registry.
>>> 
>>>  RS>    Maybe .. See A.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4) A mechanism by which multiple registrars can populate the registry.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why that level of complexity?  The formal assumption here is self
>>> validation. This is useless level of administrative burden. Low cost
>>> implementation was the key implementation assumption here.
>>> 
>>> RS>   For instance classic telephony routing registries are WAY WAY WAY
> too
>>> expensive.
>> 
>>> 6) Whois-like tracking of entities on behalf of whom registrations are
>> made.
>>> 
>>>   RS>  +1  I'm pretty much there on this.
>> 
>> I've given this considerable thought and I convinced that some form of
> WHOIS
>> like mechanism is necessary here for this class of registry that is not
>> available in ITAD registrations.   As I pointed out earlier the
>> functionality of this in Real-time Communications networks would be
> roughly
>> equivalent to Administrative Domains or the use of AS numbers in
> traditional
>> routing. Having administrative and technical contact names associated with
>> G-SPID seems essential.  There is another reason.  SPID's in North
> American
>> numbering databases were developed in part to satisfy the requirements of
>> Law Enforcement Administrations that needed a quick method of finding out
>> who the "carrier of record" was for a particular TN so they could discover
> a
>> administrative contact necessary to process lawful intercept orders.  Now
>> the proposed registry would not be involved in such orders but if national
>> administrations choose to implement G-SPID in their databases then I
> suspect
>> such WHOIS data would be very useful indeed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAI mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai