[ppml] Directory Services - Take 2

[Mark Kosters]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:32:19AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Directory services is one of the major external functions of a 
> registry (DNS, billing, registration are the others), yet I don't see 
> any background material for this policy.  Has ARIN (membership, AC, 
> staff) ever identified the constituencies that rely on the directory 
> services?  Has there been constituency-by-constituency delineation of 
> requirements for the directory services?
> 
> It's really hard to effectively evaluate a policy statement without 
> understanding the underlying system.  It's like putting regulation 
> ahead of the technology.

Bingo. In my opinion, you have hit the basis of the problem here.
We need to develop the purpose and scope of this directory service
before coming to some sort of agreeable policy. Based on the purpose,
the scope can be vastly different.

For example: if the purpose of this directory is to be a way of
anyone to independently audit the allocations and subsequent assignments
then the access control should be open for all organizational
and contact records associated with that part of the ip space or
as space.

If the purpose of the directory is to provide contact information for
network problems, then perhaps org info should be hidden and contact 
info should only be known to isps and no one else.

If the purpose of the directory is to provide information to law enforcement
then org and contact info should be given to those bodies and no one else.

If the purpose of the directory is to protect someones trademark, then
the legal community should have access to the org and contact info
and nobody else. Maybe this one is a bit far-fetched but I do know of
at least one person who is dreaming about trademarking their ip space.

The reality of this is that there is a whole host of purposes we need
to drill down on to figure out why we need to have directory service
in the first place along with its scope of usage. Once we are clear
on a list of purposes, IMHO, we can then go down the policy path.

> What "reforms" does this proposal bring?  Why is there the feeling 
> that people are "piggy backing" "favorite technology" to prevent the 
> reforms?  I have suggested that IRIS become a priority - but that's 
> not the major problem I have with the proposal.

Leo has spent many hours writing up a lot of text and I thank him
for bringing this to the table. But there is a lot of stuff built
into this policy that allows for multiple vectors for argument,
confusion, and filling of email boxes. I think we need to step
back as you said and look at the purpose and scope first.

Regards,
Mark

-- 

Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com       Verisign Applied Research