[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5

[Owen DeLong]

OK... Let's try to clarify this once and for all.

There already exists separate policy which covers acceptable PROTOCOLS
for directory services for reassignment information.  This policy
addresses PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS for those services.  This policy
should be generic so that updating the PROTOCOLS policy doesn't accidentally
create a performance requirements loop-hole.

I don't know the policy number for the protocol specification, but, I am
pretty sure that it is a policy that comes from the pre-ARIN days and
is still on the books.

Owen


--On Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:49 -0400 "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb at merit.edu> 
wrote:

>
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>>
>> > > I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
>> > > allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
>> > > RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
>> > > service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or
>> > > XML
>> > based
>> > > service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that
>> > > point.
>> >
>> > I strenuously disagree.
>> >
>> > ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case,
>> > SWIP  and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
>> >
>> > The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who
>> > have  received IP address space must keep track of where they are used
>> > (maintain  an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of
>> > IP address  usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by
>> > submitting  regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central
>> > directory or they can  publish the directory themselves by maintaining
>> > a publicly accessible  server connected to the Internet 24/7.
>>
>> whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have ARIN
>> add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the only protocol
>> currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  I don't have
>> to  know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to use a
>> whois  client.
>
>    C&W and ARIN made a presentation at the Las Vegas ARIN meeting last
> year about C&W using their RPSL-based whois server to report address
> usage (through RPSL "inetnum" objects).  The presentation can be found at
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/Reporting_Utilization.pdf
> I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) or whether
> ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.   While the C&W
> server uses the whois "protocol" (a TCP pipe on port 43), the RPSL
> format is considerably different than the output format of RWhois.
>
>    I'd be careful about substituting the term "whois" for "RWhois" as
> it might imply the usage of RPSL whois servers (in addition to RWhois
> servers) is considered acceptable by ARIN.  I think there should be
> a more formal decision on whether RPSL whois servers are
> acceptable before generalizing the policy to include any "whois"
> service (and, by extension, LDAP/XML/etc. services).
>
>> If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I access
>> it?  How do I find out how to access it?
>>
>> If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment data in some
>> obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who wants to look up
>> an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?
>>
>> If you want to leave the method of reassignment data publication open,
>> then you're going to have to define a minimum set of guidelines that the
>> method of publication must meet to qualify.
>>
>
>    I concur with this.   Perhaps the policy could refer to some other
> document or policy which contains the guidelines for acceptable
> publication protocols and formats?
>
>
>  -Larry Blunk
>   Merit
>