[dbwg] Simple Reassignment POC

[Einar Bohlin]

Hi,

Was there some other reason they picked on you?
You're not the only one using simples.

We should discuss this, sure.  But not not in the
context of these list creators who can change
their requirements any time they want.

By definition the POC info for a simple 
reassignment is the parent block info.
Yes, one has to make two whois queries
to get that info.

As a matter of fact there is a thread in which
the rfc ignorant people addressed a smiliar issue.
And they went with two whois lookups being okay. This
is the same thing.

Where does adding to the output stop?  It 
could get extreme.  Somebody with a list might
want every IP query to include full registry
info and info for IANA and/or ICANN.

Finally, in RFC 2050 it says the
registries determine what comprises
reassignment information.  And since ARIN
allows reassign simple records, then 
simple reassignments are RFC compliant.

Regards,

Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - WorldCom
Phone: 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com



Here's the post:

http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/2002-October/001096.html

*********************************************

[RFCI-Discuss] ipwhois: ARIN's nonexistent postal addresses 
Derek J. Balling rfci-discuss at lists.megacity.org 
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:15:50 -0400 

Previous message: [RFCI-Discuss] ipwhois: ARIN's nonexistent postal addresses 
Next message: [RFCI-Discuss] ipwhois: ARIN's nonexistent postal addresses 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 05:24  PM, Will Aoki wrote:
> A whois on the OrgID will show postal addresses. I didn't find any
> telephone numbers on the OrgIDs that I checked, although the contact
> handles I checked have phone numbers.
>
> Unless the RFCs are interpreted to require address data to be returned
> in the first whois query, instead of needing another query to an orgid
> handle, ARIN seems no more or less compliant than it was before.

Thanks for digging deeper. You're right (and I don't necessarily have a 
problem with the way ARIN is doing it, now that I see how they've 
implemented it).

D

*********************************************




On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) wrote:

> I would like to propose a slight change to the way simple reassignments are displayed in ARIN's whois.  I recently had some of our IPs listed in a black list database (ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org).  The reason that I received was that the simple reassignments in ARINs database do not have POC information.  I didn't believe this was a legitimate reason to have the IPs listed because the POC information on the parent is responsible for the simple reassignment, but this was the reason given to me.  I explained to them that this was not a requirement of ARIN and that the POCs on the parent block is actually who maintains the reassignments.  The only way to fix this problem was to change all my simple reassignments into detailed reassignments.  
> 
> What I would like to propose is that when a simple reassignment is submitted the POC information listed on the parent block be imported to the simple reassignment.  So, when a query is done on a simple reassignment you will get the POC information that is responsible for the network.  The POC information that is actually displayed is the same as the parent but you do get a POC without having to do two queries.
> 
> Is there anyone out there that has had this type of problem?  Does anyone see value in making this change?
> 
> Scott  
>