WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds)
------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT Charter v 2011-09-29a

Chairs:
    TBD

Internet Area Directors:
    TBD (aimed at APPSAREA)


Description of Working Group:

    Internet registries for both numbers and names have historically
    maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some of the
    registry database.  Most registries offer the service via WHOIS
    (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide
    web pages, bulk downloads, and other services like RPSL (RFC
    2622).

    A conspicuous problem with WHOIS is that it has never been
    internationalized.  It also has no data model at all: WHOIS
    replies are basically just free-form text.  Finally, WHOIS does
    not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among
    clients and offer different information to different classes of
    user.  

    Various attempts to solve limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed
    success.  The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891).

    While there are parts of IRIS that have been widely deployed, as a
    replacement for WHOIS it has not been a success.  The primary
    reasons for this appear to be the complexity of IRIS, the
    fact that it has its own control part, and that it requires
    implementers to understand the details of the transport it is
    using.

    In response to these facts, some registries have deployed
    experimental services that provide the registration information
    services traditionally offered via WHOIS, using a RESTful approach
    to data delivery over the web.  Three such efforts have been
    undertaken, and more may be anticipated in response to the
    increased deployment of IDNA.

    The Working Group shall undertake to document the existing
    efforts, to determine the general needs of such a service; and to
    standardize a data format, to be delivered via a RESTful data
    service using HTTP (optionally using TLS).  The overall effort
    will be broadly aligned with the Cross Registry Internet Service
    Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit
    additional goal of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol
    that is to be deployed via REST.  In addition, the following three
    priorities take precedence over others:

    1.  Complete support for internationalization of queries (i.e. to
    indicate language preferences for responses) and responses.

    2.  A rigorous machine-friendly data model that allows for the
    (current) developments of innovations in TLDs and in number
    registries.

    3.  Support for differential service levels, including bulk
    access, according to different classes of user.

    It is expected that more than one data profile will need to be
    developed to be used in different service environments
    (e.g. number registry versus name registry).  The base
    specification shall include an extension mechanism to permit
    future developments in the served registries.

    One possible outcome of the requirements development stage will be
    that the WG concludes that using one protocol for name and number
    registries is an error, in which case two different but probably
    basically similar protocols will be developed.

Milestones

    [TBD]   Drafts outlining existing deployments to IESG for
    publication as Informational RFCs.

    [TBD]   Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for publication as
    Informational RFC.

    [TBD]   Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for publication on
    the standards track.

    [TBD]   Draft WEIRDS object specifications to IESG for publication
    on the standards track.