Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt

Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Wed, 02 May 2012 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFDC21E802A for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0fHaxknAtf0n for <weirds@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nic-naa.net (nic-naa.net [65.99.1.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A0E21E801E for <weirds@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-2-48.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.2.48]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q42DWXOb042912 for <weirds@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:32:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net)
Message-ID: <4FA1610E.3050706@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:30:06 -0400
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Organization: wampumpeag
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: weirds@ietf.org
References: <20120502040251.4278.qmail@joyce.lan> <4FA14C57.8050608@vande-walle.eu>
In-Reply-To: <4FA14C57.8050608@vande-walle.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [weirds] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds>
List-Post: <mailto:weirds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:30:14 -0000

> 
> This begs a question. Being rather new here, I would like to know if the IETF has a process  in place for WGs to obtain  independent legal guidance, rather than just engineers playing at being lawyers ?  

it is sufficient to for the specification to support a scoping
mechanism which may be mapped to jurisdictional bounds on any of
connection formation, query, and response data.

note that historically, attempts to "fix" rfc954 have been had the
feature (or flaw) of asserting that no scope other than global was
necessary or sufficient, though ad hoc limitations on endpoints and
rates of query have been broadly adopted, and one or more limitations
on response data are contained in a registry contract with the party
currently executing the iana contract.

-e