[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
william at elan.net
william at elan.net
Fri Apr 18 15:26:12 EDT 2003
> Thank you for editing this. I do have some nits I'd like to discuss.
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 11:03:54AM -0700, william at elan.net wrote:
> > How about this version for proposal:
> > "Minimum requirements for operating reassignment whois server for those
> > ISPs that do not use SWIP to provide public access to their reassigments
> > are as follows:
> I don't think we want to say whois server here. Either we stick with
> RWhois or called it an "ARIN approved distributed information service".
How about something like "ARIN approved distributed information service
(such as rwhois)".
BTW - It was my understanding that CRISP would still be called whois service
protocol. Meaning "whois" is appropriate word for "internet resources
information service" and does not specifically means original whois
> > Reassignment server must allow public access to reassignment information
> > 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and must return results that are up-to-date
> > for the ip address queried.
> > Reassignment server may follow privace considerations for public access to
> > whois as described in other ARIN policies but must provide exact detail on
> > assignments and allocations to ARIN staff.
> Humm, what do others think of having two views and the wording above
> as opposed to what is stated in the multi-homing section of the policy?
As me and others have stated, multi-homing policy does not really go into
privacy protections, but other policies do and one is actually in last-call
and another one has been discussed on the meeting. We must not be specific
The original wording I actually took from your version "The RWhois server
must give customer information as described in the multi-homed policy to
ARIN staff" which would already imply two views which I agree may not be
the best - some reassignment servers may support it, some may not.
Possibly we can change the wording into:
"Reassignment server may follow privace considerations for public access to
whois as described in other ARIN policies but organization must provide
exact details on assignments and allocations to ARIN staff per their request"
This would have implied meaning that they do not need to provide all
information through public whois but ARIN may receive it either
autmaiticly though special view or manually if they ask.
Note: "per their request" is probably not necessary either.
> > The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval from
> > a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring attempts,
> > and other nefarious acts and may temporarily disable service for short
> > maintanance period not to exceed 12 hours per month.
> Is 12 hours a good number? Do we want to put up sla-like numbers that
> RWhois providers to have to sustain?
I think if we do not put specific number, some companies may just use it
as excuses to keep their rwhois server down, claiming maintainace period
I think some number have to be specified, if 12 hours it too short, then
make it 24 hours. One day per month for maintanance period is way more
then enough in my view
> Mark (aka Mr RWhois)
More information about the ARIN-PPML