[dbwg] WHOIS Modification - Part 1 of 2 (fwd)

[ginny listman]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:03:54 -0800
From: geoffrey camps <Geoffrey.Camps at cw.com>
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