Re: [weirds] Entity name searches

Andrew Newton <> Mon, 09 November 2015 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCE11B83FE for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:45:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7bsOnfNSgKe5 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C48561B83E4 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmnn186 with SMTP id n186so125676582wmn.1 for <>; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:45:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VILa/uFmGAnubCNO+5K3FiMoO3auZghMvJmADVr7FhI=; b=qCbd4ldvhP1pOR23WORJDZjgkpxyVSakPD6RW1qac/42C1qf4tg/RaJsr0P7eNY/zG g9h95jjT6eOm5ycPbkwKEEb1hKesvfGAdHn1UafaLfp/2e31aX7PWoJyiDyOcHp0YdGo RZUVUpztYSLed9QP+Rh8NoPhk8jLo62edsz1cyVknMrtM9KR3oMf0lvkHuYxNtxxvv0m ZUkFNyMIQ8Sdjn384+87ZbzjYpyjPwG99c+ey8Qoe/7ntXWsnsn8yDuJjwOIgM3rsWaH oXQhDbRu60pu0EJm11yd0iqAFDw5VVQNdRvlEZFS6ARJskZ4vEztK0CPANNgSAG6kDlZ Fj8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VILa/uFmGAnubCNO+5K3FiMoO3auZghMvJmADVr7FhI=; b=RCgxiBjVqw3Ih0dWnd2VTssVk3p9D/JxwEEqJXsvjnzTlJktl3CwnG0NOFKekh1YS0 yceEgw0KFR6Q07lLjNr6SdaG24B86kGlM++VGnFQY1+kkyIcPeO5Shey49T+i9Kw6obh Hws7w7MbvkUWjs54dVl8ZEzcskv9/sTb257+PpvXsuldrueqLU26jFUm5TqeweiNy2wV JWcUNOBUDdenr69NhN9v2BlxvEiZbTL75jUVBkBsnMX+JSix6fT4cYmrJ+lod5uk9pkQ rVPdyjnbKHZAnsov2ASyXy02LiFvNt2i/FDUHyo7AQovVwQCV7zxaSRoIL0lWBAJjF/i LGAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTecm/LufHirTOyuUS3RbwSQPEBI6JD+UId6vz0tb5e2GP9zL9/snc11f+jLbmLxWZXy+v
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id u7mr8735865wjz.11.1447101933413; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:45:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:500:4:15:f24d:a2ff:fe31:a268]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Andrew Newton <>
To: Brian Mountford <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Justine Tunney <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [weirds] Entity name searches
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:45:36 -0000

It depends. Are you trying to do something useful or trying to meet a
conformance checkbox?

If it is the former, I'm unsure who would complain with your broadened
search results. If the issue is that the semantics in the
specification should be better, its best to have a concrete proposal
to put in an Internet Draft.

If you are trying to conform to something like an ICANN agreement, I'd
do as the RFC says because ICANN has signalled they intend to submit
Internet Drafts describing the search capabilities they specifically
need. Anything you guess at today is likely just to be extra work.


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Brian Mountford <> wrote:
> Well, for instance, one might want to search the organization. When I do a
> WHOIS query for, the contacts have an organization of Google Inc.
> I might want to search for all contacts with that organization.
> I can try to tailor the interpretation, but since the search string syntax
> does not allow for arbitrary suffix searching, it's not clear what tailoring
> is possible. Are you saying that I could take an entity name search string
> of "McB*" and interpret that as a search for names any of whose words begin
> with McB, so that it would find Joe McBride as well as McBurns Simpson? That
> seems to be playing pretty loose with the partial search string rules, since
> the RFC takes pains to define that syntax so precisely.
> Brian
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Newton <> wrote:
>> Welcome to the world of internationalization, where the concept of a
>> last name vs a first name is not universal, and US ASCII is not
>> representative all the characters used.
>> Since you know the data in your database best, you should taylor the
>> interpretation of the query input to that which works best with your
>> registry.
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Brian Mountford <>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > And only names? There is no provision for searching entities by address,
>> > etc.?
>> >
>> I don't think that ever came up. It would require an RDAP extension. I
>> do question how useful such a thing would be. Why does anybody care
>> that a particular registry has contacts living on Mumford Lane in East
>> Westover? Are they searching all the registries for that information?
>> Do they need a telephone book instead?
>> -andy