From ginny at arin.net Fri Nov 1 14:23:25 2002 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:23:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] Portable/non-portable flags gone? In-Reply-To: <20021031124444.A14657@noc.ultra.net> Message-ID: Joe, I ran some queries against the database. There are currently 5293 network records that have a public comment with the words "NON-PORTABLE" embedded. I ran the same query against the database as of conversion. There were 3542. Do you have a specific network that we can research? Ginny On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Joe Provo wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 02:50:39PM -0400, ginny listman wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Joe Provo wrote: > > > > > > Seems that in the change over to the new format, "non-portable" flags > > > got dropped, munged or changed to non-displaying. Everything I check > > > that 'should' have the modern equivalent of the old "ADDRESSES WITHIN > > > THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE" don't have anything in the only space > > > I'd expect something ("Comment:"). Recent allocations do appear to > > > properly be tagge; is ARIN going to true up with old data or do > > > delegaees need to re-file portability status with ARIN? > > > > You have found a bug in the registration software. This bug has also been > > reported by someone from Telus. We have corrected the bug and are working > > on correcting any records for templates that were processed prior to the > > fix. You should see the corrected record in tomorrow's WHOIS. > > "Tomorrow never comes". > > I presume ARIN has the old data somewhere and there actually is interest > in correcting this problem? Seems it would be easier to translate the > old data than deal with a flood of re-filed requests. > > Any timeframe? > > Cheers, > > Joe > > -- > Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 > Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.486.7610 > Network Deployment & Management, RCN > From joe.provo at rcn.com Mon Nov 4 09:51:12 2002 From: joe.provo at rcn.com (Joe Provo) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:51:12 -0500 Subject: [dbwg] Portable/non-portable flags gone? In-Reply-To: ; from ginny@arin.net on Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 02:23:25PM -0500 References: <20021031124444.A14657@noc.ultra.net> Message-ID: <20021104095111.A27021@noc.ultra.net> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 02:23:25PM -0500, ginny listman wrote: > I ran some queries against the database. There are currently 5293 > network records that have a public comment with the words "NON-PORTABLE" > embedded. I ran the same query against the database as of conversion. > There were 3542. Do you have a specific network that we can research? [snip] (For the list archive) Ginny and I checked up on my concerns. It looks like the specific records with which I had issue were hosed before the DB conversion, potentially in one of the many contact-transfars that happened during RCN's "acquisition" years. So - apologies for aspersions on the DBWG folks - word of warning to others to cache and fully validate allll fields before and after contact transfers. Cheers, Joe -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.486.7610 Network Deployment & Management, RCN From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Nov 11 16:37:05 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:37:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-1 Message-ID: <200211112137.QAA27860@ops.arin.net> The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of Trustees for consideration. This is a last call for comments on this policy proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. Comments received during this period will be included with the proposal when it is presented to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will expire at 23:59 EST on November 22, 2002. Raymond A. Plzak President American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) *** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2002-1 *** 2002-1: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA ARIN will actively identify lame DNS name server(s) for in-addr.arpa delegations associated with address blocks allocated, assigned or administered by ARIN. Upon identification of a lame delegation, ARIN shall attempt to contact the POC for that resource. The process of contact shall follow at least the following sequence until the lame delegation is repaired: 1) E-mail contact to POC information from ARIN database record(s) associated with the in-addr.arpa delegation 2) E-mail contact to POC information from ARIN database record(s) associated with ASN(s) originating the route in the global routing table. 3) Telephone contact to any POC information obtained above 4) Postal mail contact to any POC information obtained above requesting response within 30 days After completing the contact procedures listed above, and the lame delegation persists, and waiting for a minimum of 30 days following the postal mail being sent, ARIN shall update the resource record with text indicating: 1) That the delegation has been determined to be lame 2) The evaluation date of the lame delegation 3) That contact has been attempted unsuccessfully 4) The date record was updated The record shall be further updated by removing the name server delegation(s). ## END ## From ginny at arin.net Mon Nov 18 11:55:28 2002 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:55:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] Appending Action to Subject Line Message-ID: A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, regarding a method to more clearly identify rejected templates. It was suggested ARIN append the word "REJECTED" or "APPROVED" to the subject line on the return message for all Reassign, Reallocate, AS Number Modification, and Network Modification templates. Prior to implementing this procedural change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice before making this procedural change? If so, is one week sufficient? If no additional comments are received before November 29, ARIN will begin to implement this procedural change, with an expected release date in January. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From ginny at arin.net Wed Nov 20 13:35:14 2002 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:35:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 Message-ID: A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, regarding separating the city, state/province and postal code from the address line. This would facilitate parsing the postal address. This can be done one of three ways: Current format: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggestion format #1: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #2: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #3: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street City/Region: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #4: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Address: Corporate Planning and Services Address: Ministry of Colleges and Universities Address: 8th floor, mowat block Address: 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Although format #1 was not suggested at the meeting, it is similar to the format for multi-lined comments. Format #2 was the preferred method at the meeting, mainly because people were focusing on a single line street address. Format #3 was suggested at the meeting, but consensus was against it. Format #4 was not suggested at the meeting, but if implemented, begs the question, "Should the 'Comments:' label be repeated?" Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice before making the change? If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will begin to implement format #1. It should be noted that time of release of these changes depends upon the method selected. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From jiml at mrtg.noc.adelphia.net Wed Nov 20 13:47:59 2002 From: jiml at mrtg.noc.adelphia.net (James W. Laferriere) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:47:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Ginny & All , If I had my druthers , #4 & yes multiple Comments: lines . Tnx , JimL On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, ginny listman wrote: > > A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion > during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in > Eugene, Oregon, regarding separating the city, state/province and postal > code from the address line. This would facilitate parsing the postal > address. This can be done one of three ways: ... > Suggested format #4: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Address: Corporate Planning and Services > Address: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > Address: 8th floor, mowat block > Address: 900 Bay Street > Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > Although format #1 was not suggested at the meeting, it is similar to the > format for multi-lined comments. Format #2 was the preferred method at the > meeting, mainly because people were focusing on a single line street > address. Format #3 was suggested at the meeting, but consensus was against > it. Format #4 was not suggested at the meeting, but if implemented, begs > the question, "Should the 'Comments:' label be repeated?" > > Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. > Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice > before making the change? > > If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will begin > to implement format #1. It should be noted that time of release of these > changes depends upon the method selected. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN > -- ADELPHIA Communications, Corp. James W. Laferriere Research Engineer jiml at adelphiacom.net 814.260.3697 Voice 814.260.3760 Fax From ginny at arin.net Wed Nov 20 13:55:34 2002 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:55:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification Part 2 of 2 Message-ID: A discussion took place during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, that networks associated with organizations, as well as all autonomous system queries provide a postal address for the holding organization. Although under the new system the postal address is not an attribute of the resource, this format would provide the same information as the old WHOIS. The change in display format could be handled by one of the two following methods: 1. Provide the postal address for ALL networks/autonomous systems. This could lengthen the output by 2 or 4 lines in most cases. 2. Introduce a new flag to be included in the query string that would produce the postal address for these types of queries. The default display would not include postal address. Prior to implementing these changes, ARIN is soliciting further comments. Which methods are preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice before making the change? If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will begin to implement suggestion 1. It should be noted that time of release of this change depends upon the method selected. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From blake.sorensen at digitalenvoy.net Wed Nov 20 13:56:58 2002 From: blake.sorensen at digitalenvoy.net (Blake Sorensen) Date: 20 Nov 2002 18:56:58 -0000 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Both parts In-Reply-To: <> References: <> Message-ID: <20021120185658.30248.qmail@cliffclavin.digitalenvoy.net> > Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. > Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice > before making the change? For both modifications, advance notice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Blake Sorensen Software Engineer Digital Envoy From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Nov 20 16:22:58 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:22:58 +0100 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Both parts In-Reply-To: <20021120185658.30248.qmail@cliffclavin.digitalenvoy.net> References: <20021120185658.30248.qmail@cliffclavin.digitalenvoy.net> Message-ID: <20021120212258.GA23704@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2002-11-20 18:56:58 -0000, Blake Sorensen wrote: > > Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further > > comments. Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to > > provide advanced notice before making the change? > > For both modifications, advance notice would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps ARIN could modify the footer it puts on WHOIS replies with this information: # ARIN Whois database, last updated 2002-11-19 19:05 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's Whois database.# # # FORMAT WILL CHANGE 2003-01-15, see http://www.arin.net/bettercheaperfaster/ This will help the many users who aren't on any ARIN mailing lists. Sending e-mail and putting stuff on the WWW is nice, too. :) Shane From jiml at mrtg.noc.adelphia.net Wed Nov 20 16:27:36 2002 From: jiml at mrtg.noc.adelphia.net (James W. Laferriere) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:27:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Both parts In-Reply-To: <20021120212258.GA23704@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: Hello Shane & All , That is one more method . But I still prefer direct notices . Twyl , JimL On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: >On 2002-11-20 18:56:58 -0000, Blake Sorensen wrote: >> > Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further >> > comments. Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to >> > provide advanced notice before making the change? >> >> For both modifications, advance notice would be greatly appreciated. > >Perhaps ARIN could modify the footer it puts on WHOIS replies with this >information: > ># ARIN Whois database, last updated 2002-11-19 19:05 ># Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's Whois database.# ># ># FORMAT WILL CHANGE 2003-01-15, see http://www.arin.net/bettercheaperfaster/ > >This will help the many users who aren't on any ARIN mailing lists. > >Sending e-mail and putting stuff on the WWW is nice, too. :) > >Shane > -- +------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | Adelphia Cable Company | | Sr. Research Engineer | jiml at adelphiacom.net | +------------------------------------------------+ From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Nov 20 19:49:30 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:49:30 +0100 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification Part 2 of 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021121004929.GA17840@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2002-11-20 13:55:34 -0500, ginny listman wrote: > > A discussion took place during the Database Implementation Working > Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, that networks associated > with organizations, as well as all autonomous system queries provide a > postal address for the holding organization. Although under the new > system the postal address is not an attribute of the resource, this > format would provide the same information as the old WHOIS. The change > in display format could be handled by one of the two following > methods: > 1. Provide the postal address for ALL networks/autonomous systems. > This could lengthen the output by 2 or 4 lines in most cases. > 2. Introduce a new flag to be included in the query string that > would produce the postal address for these types of queries. The > default display would not include postal address. > > Prior to implementing these changes, ARIN is soliciting further > comments. Which methods are preferred? Will it be necessary to > provide advanced notice before making the change? > > If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will > begin to implement suggestion 1. It should be noted that time of > release of this change depends upon the method selected. I'm not sure I understand. While organizations have addresses, networks and ASN's can span large areas. Is the idea to pull the address from the contact and display it with the resource? Shane From cathym at arin.net Wed Nov 20 20:12:33 2002 From: cathym at arin.net (Cathy Murphy) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:12:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification Part 2 of 2 In-Reply-To: <20021121004929.GA17840@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: > On 2002-11-20 13:55:34 -0500, ginny listman wrote: > > > > A discussion took place during the Database Implementation Working > > Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, that networks associated > > with organizations, as well as all autonomous system queries provide a > > postal address for the holding organization. > > I'm not sure I understand. While organizations have addresses, networks > and ASN's can span large areas. > > Is the idea to pull the address from the contact and display it with the > resource? > > Shane As far as I recall the discussion at ARIN X, the request was for the postal address of the resource holder, not that of the contact. The address would be included just after the Org ID, e.g., CURRENT: OrgName: American Registry for Internet Numbers OrgID: ARIN NetRange: 192.149.252.0 - 192.149.252.255 ... PROPOSED: OrgName: American Registry for Internet Numbers OrgID: ARIN Address: 3635 Concord Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly VA 20151 Country: US NetRange: 192.149.252.0 - 192.149.252.255 ... (The exact format of the address line or lines will depend on the outcome of the separate thread of the dbwg.) Cathy Murphy Principal Software Engineer American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) +1 703 227 9875 From markk at verisignlabs.com Wed Nov 20 20:28:55 2002 From: markk at verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:28:55 -0500 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification Part 2 of 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20021121004929.GA17840@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: <20021121012855.GB1761@verisignlabs.com> I like this enhancement since it will reduce the query load on ARIN's whois servers. From what I understand, a number of companies scrape ARIN whois information for various purposes. With the new format, these particular companies have to query whois twice - once for the org that holds the ip address and one more time to retrieve the organizational postal info. With the enhancement, these people can just run one query. BTW, I personally like format #4 the best (with the comments label repeated for completeness sake). Mark On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:12:33PM -0500, Cathy Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: > > > On 2002-11-20 13:55:34 -0500, ginny listman wrote: > > > > > > A discussion took place during the Database Implementation Working > > > Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, that networks associated > > > with organizations, as well as all autonomous system queries provide a > > > postal address for the holding organization. > > > > I'm not sure I understand. While organizations have addresses, networks > > and ASN's can span large areas. > > > > Is the idea to pull the address from the contact and display it with the > > resource? > > > > Shane > > As far as I recall the discussion at ARIN X, the request was for the > postal address of the resource holder, not that of the contact. The > address would be included just after the Org ID, e.g., > > CURRENT: > > OrgName: American Registry for Internet Numbers > OrgID: ARIN > > NetRange: 192.149.252.0 - 192.149.252.255 > ... > > PROPOSED: > > OrgName: American Registry for Internet Numbers > OrgID: ARIN > Address: 3635 Concord Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly VA 20151 > Country: US > > NetRange: 192.149.252.0 - 192.149.252.255 > ... > > (The exact format of the address line or lines will depend on the outcome > of the separate thread of the dbwg.) -- Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign Applied Research From ddiller at cogentco.com Thu Nov 21 09:33:25 2002 From: ddiller at cogentco.com (Dave Diller) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:33:25 -0500 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification Part 2 of 2 References: Message-ID: <3DDCEEB5.BC341FE@cogentco.com> > 1. Provide the postal address for ALL networks/autonomous systems. This > could lengthen the output by 2 or 4 lines in most cases. > 2. Introduce a new flag to be included in the query string that would > produce the postal address for these types of queries. The default > display would not include postal address. Given the option, and setting aside the undiscussed implementation issues, I prefer the second choice. It allows for greater flexibility, and is more in line with new and improved WHOIS query style/structure. "Specify -b to include billing address" or something. It enables those who would otherwise need to run two queries to get an address, to run just one with the "address bit turned" on, and it enables those who only are looking for verification of ownership of a block that don't NEED the address to not GET it every time. For instance, if I am performing a whois on a block to verify the Org is who I expect it to be, then the actual address is rarely needed. -Dave Diller From ginny at arin.net Thu Nov 21 16:09:07 2002 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:03:54 -0800 From: geoffrey camps To: dbwg at arin.net Cc: ginny at arin.net Subject: RE: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 I find it odd that ARIN requests templates using different data fields than they actually use when displaying the records in WHOIS. We're required to submit to ARIN (template example): 5a. Customer Address: 2304 - 2nd Ave 6. Customer City: Seattle 7. Customer State/Province: WA 8. Customer Postal Code: 98121 However, we have to automatically generate those individual fields based upon (WHOIS example): Address: 2304 - 2nd Ave Seattle WA 98121 It's pretty difficult to parse that WHOIS data to break the data out into the template fields required above. So, I propose format #3, with the addition that the City, State/Province, and Mailing Code be comma-delimited. Suggested format #3: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street City/Region: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA ***with my additional suggestion the City/Region line would further be modified to: City/Region: Toronto, Ont, M7A 1L2 This will help to clearly distinguish between the address, city, state/province, and mailing code. -gc -----Original Message----- From: dbwg-request at arin.net [mailto:dbwg-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of ginny listman Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:35 AM To: dbwg at arin.net Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, regarding separating the city, state/province and postal code from the address line. This would facilitate parsing the postal address. This can be done one of three ways: Current format: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggestion format #1: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #2: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #3: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street City/Region: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #4: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Address: Corporate Planning and Services Address: Ministry of Colleges and Universities Address: 8th floor, mowat block Address: 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Although format #1 was not suggested at the meeting, it is similar to the format for multi-lined comments. Format #2 was the preferred method at the meeting, mainly because people were focusing on a single line street address. Format #3 was suggested at the meeting, but consensus was against it. Format #4 was not suggested at the meeting, but if implemented, begs the question, "Should the 'Comments:' label be repeated?" Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice before making the change? If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will begin to implement format #1. It should be noted that time of release of these changes depends upon the method selected. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From Larry at Riedel.org Thu Nov 21 16:30:47 2002 From: Larry at Riedel.org (Larry Riedel) Date: 21 Nov 2002 21:30:47 -0000 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021121213047.1382.qmail@home19.riedel.org> > City/Region: Toronto, Ont, M7A 1L2 > > This will help to clearly distinguish between the > address, city, state/province, and mailing code. I feel the same way: the more explicit and precise the differentiation between separate pieces of information the better, so for that reason I like the above. But as far as the labeling of the information, I prefer format #4, since I think it is no more difficult for a person to read, and is even more trivial to automatically parse than the others. I think labeling _every_ line which contains part of a field value would be very nice. But having the "City/Region" separated and delineated would be, I think, a far more significant benefit. Larry From ebohlin at uu.net Thu Nov 21 18:17:35 2002 From: ebohlin at uu.net (Einar Bohlin) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:17:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Good point, why don't we just present the data the way it's submitted: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Org Address: Org Address: Org City: Org State/Province: Org Postal Code: Org Country Code: That should be pretty easy to parse. For whom are we making this data so easy to parse? This has me wondering if the address was left out of resource records and then presented all in one line in an attempt to make the info difficult to parse, perhaps to protect the data somewhat. I wasn't at the meeting, was that discussed? Somebody must have been thinking about this because I saw in the meeting notes a reference to putting an unenforceable AUP on the whois output. Regards, Einar Bohlin IP Analyst IP Team - Ashburn Virginia UUNET/WorldCom Phone: USA 703 886-7362 email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com (VNET 806-7362) On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, ginny listman wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:03:54 -0800 > From: geoffrey camps > To: dbwg at arin.net > Cc: ginny at arin.net > Subject: RE: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 > > I find it odd that ARIN requests templates using different data fields than > they actually use when displaying the records in WHOIS. > > We're required to submit to ARIN (template example): > 5a. Customer Address: 2304 - 2nd Ave > 6. Customer City: Seattle > 7. Customer State/Province: WA > 8. Customer Postal Code: 98121 > > However, we have to automatically generate those individual fields based > upon (WHOIS example): > Address: 2304 - 2nd Ave Seattle WA 98121 > > It's pretty difficult to parse that WHOIS data to break the data out into > the template fields required above. So, I propose format #3, with the > addition that the City, State/Province, and Mailing Code be comma-delimited. > > Suggested format #3: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Corporate Planning and Services > Ministry of Colleges and Universities > 8th floor, mowat block > 900 Bay Street > City/Region: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > ***with my additional suggestion the City/Region line would further be > modified to: > > City/Region: Toronto, Ont, M7A 1L2 > > This will help to clearly distinguish between the address, city, > state/province, and mailing code. > > > -gc > > -----Original Message----- > From: dbwg-request at arin.net [mailto:dbwg-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of > ginny listman > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:35 AM > To: dbwg at arin.net > Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 > > > > A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion > during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in > Eugene, Oregon, regarding separating the city, state/province and postal > code from the address line. This would facilitate parsing the postal > address. This can be done one of three ways: > > Current format: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Corporate Planning and Services > Ministry of Colleges and Universities > 8th floor, mowat block > 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > Suggestion format #1: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Corporate Planning and Services > Ministry of Colleges and Universities > 8th floor, mowat block > 900 Bay Street > Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > Suggested format #2: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Corporate Planning and Services > Ministry of Colleges and Universities > 8th floor, mowat block > 900 Bay Street > Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > Suggested format #3: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Corporate Planning and Services > Ministry of Colleges and Universities > 8th floor, mowat block > 900 Bay Street > City/Region: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > Suggested format #4: > > OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > OrgID: MCU-1 > Address: Government of Ontario > Address: Corporate Planning and Services > Address: Ministry of Colleges and Universities > Address: 8th floor, mowat block > Address: 900 Bay Street > Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 > Country: CA > > Although format #1 was not suggested at the meeting, it is similar to the > format for multi-lined comments. Format #2 was the preferred method at the > meeting, mainly because people were focusing on a single line street > address. Format #3 was suggested at the meeting, but consensus was against > it. Format #4 was not suggested at the meeting, but if implemented, begs > the question, "Should the 'Comments:' label be repeated?" > > Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. > Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice > before making the change? > > If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will begin > to implement format #1. It should be noted that time of release of these > changes depends upon the method selected. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN > > > From ginny at arin.net Fri Nov 22 14:38:01 2002 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:38:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, geoffrey camps wrote: > I find it odd that ARIN requests templates using different data fields than > they actually use when displaying the records in WHOIS. > > We're required to submit to ARIN (template example): > 5a. Customer Address: 2304 - 2nd Ave > 6. Customer City: Seattle > 7. Customer State/Province: WA > 8. Customer Postal Code: 98121 > The primary reason we do not display each field separately is to conserve space. This may not be an issue when querying an org or poc, but if we provide the full address for networks where there is already a long display, the output will on average, be 4-5 lines longer. Also, there are many records that have NULL city, state/province and postal codes, so there is the possibility these fields would be blank. > ***with my additional suggestion the City/Region line would further be > modified to: > > City/Region: Toronto, Ont, M7A 1L2 > Currently, there are about 400 orgs with commas in their city. There are about 600 POCs with the same problem. Most (if not all) are errors. Using a comma will cause parsing problems until these are cleaned up. Going forward, commas are currently valid characters for these fields. It would not take much for us to change this, just pointing out that it would need to be done. The other possibility it to use a different delimiter. Ginny From Geoffrey.Camps at cw.com Fri Nov 22 14:50:28 2002 From: Geoffrey.Camps at cw.com (geoffrey camps) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:50:28 -0800 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think breaking up the proposed separate City, Sate, and Zip line using a comma as the delimiter may actually be workable. It might not matter if there are potential cities with embedded commas, as long as the line is parsed from right -> left. The only thing that might break this rationale is if there are any State/Provinces or Zip Codes in the ARIN database that contain commas. Otherwise, we may be ok. Thoughts? Additionally, I definitely understand and agree with your concern to conserve space within the WHOIS output results. -gc -----Original Message----- From: ginny listman [mailto:ginny at arin.net] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 11:38 AM To: geoffrey camps Cc: dbwg at arin.net Subject: RE: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, geoffrey camps wrote: > I find it odd that ARIN requests templates using different data fields than > they actually use when displaying the records in WHOIS. > > We're required to submit to ARIN (template example): > 5a. Customer Address: 2304 - 2nd Ave > 6. Customer City: Seattle > 7. Customer State/Province: WA > 8. Customer Postal Code: 98121 > The primary reason we do not display each field separately is to conserve space. This may not be an issue when querying an org or poc, but if we provide the full address for networks where there is already a long display, the output will on average, be 4-5 lines longer. Also, there are many records that have NULL city, state/province and postal codes, so there is the possibility these fields would be blank. > ***with my additional suggestion the City/Region line would further be > modified to: > > City/Region: Toronto, Ont, M7A 1L2 > Currently, there are about 400 orgs with commas in their city. There are about 600 POCs with the same problem. Most (if not all) are errors. Using a comma will cause parsing problems until these are cleaned up. Going forward, commas are currently valid characters for these fields. It would not take much for us to change this, just pointing out that it would need to be done. The other possibility it to use a different delimiter. Ginny From ddiller at cogentco.com Fri Nov 22 15:14:43 2002 From: ddiller at cogentco.com (Dave Diller) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:14:43 -0500 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 References: Message-ID: <3DDE9033.F2B03CA8@cogentco.com> > The other possibility it to use a different delimiter. How about a semicolon as the delimiter? Since we're discussing addresses, I suspect that a semicolon would be semi-uncommon in the data, when compared to the semi-common comma [heehee]. If you left the templates as is, with the data input on separate lines - then the implementation would not require any changes by the users on the submission side, only on the parsing side. Ergo, no training people away from using a comma in the fields or having to script around places where its actually USEFUL like "Street Address, Suite Number" [or accidental, as you point out]. -Dave Diller From louie at equinix.com Fri Nov 22 20:27:28 2002 From: louie at equinix.com (Louis Lee) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:27:28 -0800 Subject: [dbwg] Appending Action to Subject Line In-Reply-To: ; from ginny@arin.net on Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:55:28AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20021122172728.A8805@nemo.corp.equinix.com> I would think a one week notice is sufficient for this change since its implementation does not require the requestors to change our submission scripts. Louie ------------------------------------------------------- Louis Lee louie at equinix.com Staff Network Engineer office: 650/316-6162 Equinix, Inc. fax: 650/316-6903 http://www.equinix.com/ On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:55:28AM -0500, ginny listman wrote: > > A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion > during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in > Eugene, Oregon, regarding a method to more clearly identify rejected > templates. It was suggested ARIN append the word "REJECTED" or "APPROVED" > to the subject line on the return message for all Reassign, Reallocate, > AS Number Modification, and Network Modification templates. > > Prior to implementing this procedural change, ARIN is soliciting further > comments. Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice before making > this procedural change? If so, is one week sufficient? > > If no additional comments are received before November 29, ARIN will begin > to implement this procedural change, with an expected release date in > January. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN From william at elan.net Sun Nov 24 04:15:08 2002 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:15:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 Message-ID: Format number 2 is the best one probably, it provides clear distinction which part of the address belongs to "street and other information" and which part to city, state, zip code. But as has been suggested before it is good idea to separate City, State/Province and Zip/Postal Code by "," in the output to allow for easier parsing of this information. So I'd like to see the following format: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto, ON, M7A 1L2 Country: CA BTW: In terms of implementing parsers, format #4 is actually the easiest to implement and similar formats are so common in apnic, ripe and various country registrars and parsers for it already exist and can be ported in seconds. But at the same time, none of those parsers work 100% to get city, state, exactly because its often not clear in the address where they are its just easier to have it as clearly separated field. On separate point, I think the example given was really bad - "Goverment of Canada", "Corporate Planning and Services" and "Ministry of Colleges and Universities" does not belong to address. The whole problem is that there is no way to enter "full" organization name in the database and address is used instead. Perhaps correct idea is to allow multiple lines for organization name, rather then forcing to enter this info as "address" and then those doing searches and queries are mislead especially since ARIN stoped providing address in every query. Besides that "ONT" for province name is also very rare, almost everywhere either 2-letter abbreviation of full province/state name are used and I do hope ARIN can make sure that province name when displayed follows conventional 2-letter format for US & Canadian locations - its not like there are that many states & provinces that ARIN can't write a filter and reject all incorrectly entered province/state in incoming templates (have them either enter full province/state name and convert that to two-letter) or just two-letter abbreviation! This suggestion is only for US & Canadian addresses everything else should be done as-is. William Leibzon william at elan.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ginny listman (ginny at arin.net) To: dbwg at ARIN.NET Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 13:35:14 EST Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A discussion took place on this mailing list, with further discussion during the Database Implementation Working Group Meeting at ARIN X in Eugene, Oregon, regarding separating the city, state/province and postal code from the address line. This would facilitate parsing the postal address. This can be done one of three ways: Current format: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggestion format #1: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #2: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #3: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Corporate Planning and Services Ministry of Colleges and Universities 8th floor, mowat block 900 Bay Street City/Region: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Suggested format #4: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Address: Government of Ontario Address: Corporate Planning and Services Address: Ministry of Colleges and Universities Address: 8th floor, mowat block Address: 900 Bay Street Address: Toronto Ont M7A 1L2 Country: CA Although format #1 was not suggested at the meeting, it is similar to the format for multi-lined comments. Format #2 was the preferred method at the meeting, mainly because people were focusing on a single line street address. Format #3 was suggested at the meeting, but consensus was against it. Format #4 was not suggested at the meeting, but if implemented, begs the question, "Should the 'Comments:' label be repeated?" Prior to implementing this change, ARIN is soliciting further comments. Which method is preferred? Will it be necessary to provide advanced notice before making the change? If no additional comments are received before December 6, ARIN will begin to implement format #1. It should be noted that time of release of these changes depends upon the method selected. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From william at elan.net Sun Nov 24 06:33:21 2002 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 03:33:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 (fwd) Message-ID: I suspect that primary reason for putting city, state, zip code data into one line is to save space and not have to provide too many lines in the output and probably same was the reason for taking address out of default whois output and there is no particular reason that ARIN has to make it "difficult" to parse data. In fact if anything arin would probably try the opposite (anybody from ARIN care to comment here?). And as for people/companies getting the data for marketing purposes, I can assure you that separate query would in no way stop them and if anything they actually like address data in one line/field - most really do not care about particular city/state, they just want entire address for whatever mailing they are going to do. As for AUP, why not do it? Its not too difficult and provides at least some "verbal" protection to make sure "honest" companies to not abuse data. As for it not being easily enforcable, this may change in the future and if somebody really bad is found to be abusing the data, some civil action maybe taken by ARIN. The reasons for doing it are somewhat similar to domain registries and as you're aware all registrars in .com/.net/.org and most country regisrars have AUP. This should really be separate discussion on the mailing list and not part whois modification proposal and unless I see any serious comments on this list why AUP somewhat similar to what is done for bulk whois output (including 2002-4) should not be made a general AUP on arin whois data (with one-line url reference to it from arin whois output), I'll introduce this as discussion and policy some time later on. William Leibzon william at elan.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Einar Bohlin (ebohlin at uu.net) To: dbwg at ARIN.NET Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 18:17:35 EST Subject: RE: [dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 (fwd) Hi, Good point, why don't we just present the data the way it's submitted: OrgName: Ministry of Colleges and Universities OrgID: MCU-1 Org Address: Org Address: Org City: Org State/Province: Org Postal Code: Org Country Code: That should be pretty easy to parse. For whom are we making this data so easy to parse? This has me wondering if the address was left out of resource records and then presented all in one line in an attempt to make the info difficult to parse, perhaps to protect the data somewhat. I wasn't at the meeting, was that discussed? Somebody must have been thinking about this because I saw in the meeting notes a reference to putting an unenforceable AUP on the whois output. Regards, Einar Bohlin IP Analyst IP Team - Ashburn Virginia UUNET/WorldCom Phone: USA 703 886-7362 email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com (VNET 806-7362)