From william at elan.net Tue Jun 3 18:00:07 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [dbwg] Are POC handles ever deleted from ARIN database? Message-ID: I'm curious as to what ARIN does to POC handles that are no longer associated with ANY resources. Are these ever deleted from the whois database (some kind of major cleanup)? If so when was it last time this was done by ARIN? If they are not deleted by ARIN, if any handle I'd expect to be in the database but it is not, would it mean it was specifically deleted through template? --- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william at elan.net From timc at arin.net Mon Jun 9 07:39:55 2003 From: timc at arin.net (Tim Christensen) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:39:55 -0400 Subject: [dbwg] Are POC handles ever deleted from ARIN database? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20030605134525.02c13078@ops.arin.net> Hello William, > I'm curious as to what ARIN does to POC handles that are no longer >associated with ANY resources. Are these ever deleted from the whois >database (some kind of major cleanup)? If so when was it last time this >was done by ARIN? > If they are not deleted by ARIN, if any handle I'd expect to be in the >database but it is not, would it mean it was specifically deleted through >template? Since the database conversion in August 2002, ARIN has not removed POCs from the database, except when a POC has explicitly submitted a POC "remove" template. With the introduction of the new registration system, a period of time was required to evaluate the impact of the new system's requirements for Org ID and POC records prior to delegation of internet number resources. A decision was recently reached to remove POCs from the database after 30 consecutive days of having no relationship with any resources, and no relationship with any Org ID for the same period. A similar scheme frame will be used to remove unused Org IDs. (different criteria will be applied to _newly_ created POCs or Org IDs in anticipation of first-time registrations.) ARIN Engineering is in the process of implementing the plan. Regards, Tim Christensen Database Administrator American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From ginny at arin.net Mon Jun 16 15:03:01 2003 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Change Announcement Message-ID: Based on feedback from the most recent DBWG meeting at ARIN XI, ARIN staff will make minor modifications to the way organization data is displayed in WHOIS. These changes will be released on 16-Jul-2003. For organizations with Rwhois servers, ARIN will append an Rwhois server information field to the organization information displayed in whois. The whois display will place the label "ReferralServer:" and its URL value. Acceptable values are: ReferralServer: rwhois://192.0.2.11:4321/ ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.arin.net:4321/ ReferralServer: rwhois.example.net:4321 ReferralServer: rwhois://whois.example.com:43/ Invalid values include: ReferralServer: rwhois.arin.net ReferralServer: http://whois.example.net:80/ Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From william at elan.net Mon Jun 16 15:17:57 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Change Announcement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is that my understanding then that you're adding this to ORG table? Did you check how many organizations are out there that have some ip blocks with rwhois and some without it? I bet its 1/2 of those who use rwhois if not more - especially considering when companies bought each other and then began to transfer under one unified orgid. So how are these cases going to be handled? What about when you want one rwhois server for one ip block and possibly different for another? Also for the example below can we change "rwhois://whois.example.net:43/" to just "whois://whois.example.net:43/", that would be more appropriate. On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 ginny at arin.net wrote: > > Based on feedback from the most recent DBWG meeting at ARIN XI, ARIN > staff will make minor modifications to the way organization data is > displayed in WHOIS. These changes will be released on 16-Jul-2003. > > For organizations with Rwhois servers, ARIN will append an Rwhois > server information field to the organization information displayed in > whois. The whois display will place the label "ReferralServer:" and > its URL value. > > Acceptable values are: > > ReferralServer: rwhois://192.0.2.11:4321/ > ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.arin.net:4321/ > ReferralServer: rwhois.example.net:4321 > ReferralServer: rwhois://whois.example.com:43/ > > Invalid values include: > > ReferralServer: rwhois.arin.net > ReferralServer: http://whois.example.net:80/ > > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN > > > From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Mon Jun 16 18:19:45 2003 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:19:45 -0400 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Change Announcement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message (on 16 June 2003 12:17:57 -0700), william at elan.net (william at elan.net) wrote: >Also for the example below can we change "rwhois://whois.example.net:43/" >to just "whois://whois.example.net:43/", that would be more appropriate. Yes, this would be appropriate if the server running at whois.example.net on port 43 is a whois server, not an rwhois server; the distinction needs to be made clear, since theoretically someone could be running an rwhois server on port 43. whois://whois.example.net/, without the '43', should probably be OK, provided that the server is indeed a whois server running on port 43, since one normally is not required to put the port on a URI if the port is the standard one (IANA-assigned) for the protocol. >On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 ginny at arin.net wrote: > >> >> Based on feedback from the most recent DBWG meeting at ARIN XI, ARIN >> staff will make minor modifications to the way organization data is >> displayed in WHOIS. These changes will be released on 16-Jul-2003. >> >> For organizations with Rwhois servers, ARIN will append an Rwhois >> server information field to the organization information displayed in >> whois. The whois display will place the label "ReferralServer:" and >> its URL value. >> >> Acceptable values are: >> >> ReferralServer: rwhois://192.0.2.11:4321/ >> ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.arin.net:4321/ >> ReferralServer: rwhois.example.net:4321 >> ReferralServer: rwhois://whois.example.com:43/ >> >> Invalid values include: >> >> ReferralServer: rwhois.arin.net >> ReferralServer: http://whois.example.net:80/ >> >> >> Ginny Listman >> Director of Engineering >> ARIN >> >> >> > -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ February 1, 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Ad Astra Per Aspera To The Stars Through Asperity From william at elan.net Tue Jun 17 11:11:35 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [dbwg] parent org idea Message-ID: I've had an idea for a while that it could be usefull for ARIN to allow one organization id to specify a "parent" organization id. Basicly there are many instances I find where one organization has multiple ARIN organization ids (sometimes even a dozen or more!) and it is getting rather difficult to trace this all. Some companies end up with multiple ids because of mergers, some do this on purpose, but in general it would be good idea to be able to determine with certainty that this is the same company and for large companies it may also be usefull to be able to add their offices in different cities/regions (which often act almost independent) or subsidiaries under their own org allowing local people there to manage aspects of ip information and administration (as far as ARIN whois, swips, etc) but still allowing one overall main account with ARIN. The database change here would be very simple - add "parent orgid" field organization table. There would probably also needs to be some whois changes to allow ">" query to show child organizations. But overall I don't think technically this is that difficult. What do you all think of this idea? BTW - I'm brining this up now in part because ARIN has decided to link "ReferralServer" field to orgnization table and this would mean that organizations must decide to either have rwhois server for all their netblocks or none. By setting up system as described above, an organization that wished to maintain rwhois server for some ip blocks and not for others can setup separate orgid with different referral-server settings. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william at elan.net From ginny at arin.net Tue Jun 17 14:03:47 2003 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Change Announcement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 william at elan.net wrote: > Is that my understanding then that you're adding this to ORG table? It will be an attribute of the org. > > Did you check how many organizations are out there that have some ip > blocks with rwhois and some without it? I bet its 1/2 of those who use > rwhois if not more - especially considering when companies bought each > other and then began to transfer under one unified orgid. So how are these > cases going to be handled? What about when you want one rwhois server for > one ip block and possibly different for another? ARIN surveyed all the technical contacts that were listed where the comments indicate an RWhois server. Of those surveyed, the majority favored an org attribute over a network attribute. Also associating it with the network raised issues of whether we should allow it on various network types. We opted to only associate it with the org at this time. After a 3-6 month period of implementation, we will once again survey the community to determine if a network attribute is still desireable. If it is, we will address the necessary questions. > > Also for the example below can we change "rwhois://whois.example.net:43/" > to just "whois://whois.example.net:43/", that would be more appropriate. > Currently ARIN permits either SWIP or RWhois to report utilization. This may change in the future, but rwhois is the only schema permitted at this time. Ginny > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 ginny at arin.net wrote: > > > > > Based on feedback from the most recent DBWG meeting at ARIN XI, ARIN > > staff will make minor modifications to the way organization data is > > displayed in WHOIS. These changes will be released on 16-Jul-2003. > > > > For organizations with Rwhois servers, ARIN will append an Rwhois > > server information field to the organization information displayed in > > whois. The whois display will place the label "ReferralServer:" and > > its URL value. > > > > Acceptable values are: > > > > ReferralServer: rwhois://192.0.2.11:4321/ > > ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.arin.net:4321/ > > ReferralServer: rwhois.example.net:4321 > > ReferralServer: rwhois://whois.example.com:43/ > > > > Invalid values include: > > > > ReferralServer: rwhois.arin.net > > ReferralServer: http://whois.example.net:80/ > > > > > > Ginny Listman > > Director of Engineering > > ARIN > > > > > > > > From ginny at arin.net Wed Jun 18 11:42:45 2003 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [dbwg] parent org idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 william at elan.net wrote: > I've had an idea for a while that it could be usefull for ARIN to allow > one organization id to specify a "parent" organization id. > Basicly there are many instances I find where one organization has > multiple ARIN organization ids (sometimes even a dozen or more!) and it is > getting rather difficult to trace this all. Some companies end up with > multiple ids because of mergers, some do this on purpose, but in general > it would be good idea to be able to determine with certainty that this is > the same company and for large companies it may also be usefull to be able > to add their offices in different cities/regions (which often act almost > independent) or subsidiaries under their own org allowing local people > there to manage aspects of ip information and administration (as far as > ARIN whois, swips, etc) but still allowing one overall main account with > ARIN. > The database change here would be very simple - add "parent orgid" field > organization table. There would probably also needs to be some whois changes > to allow ">" query to show child organizations. But overall I don't think > technically this is that difficult. > What do you all think of this idea? > > BTW - > I'm brining this up now in part because ARIN has decided to link > "ReferralServer" field to orgnization table and this would mean that > organizations must decide to either have rwhois server for all their > netblocks or none. By setting up system as described above, an > organization that wished to maintain rwhois server for some ip blocks > and not for others can setup separate orgid with different referral-server > settings. > > We agree that the parent org is a good idea. In fact, back in December 2000, we put this concept into our schema, and it still exists today. Our intention was to introduce this ability in the future. Although this functionality has not been a high priority for the Engineering staff at this point in time, we still intend to further explore this sometime in the future. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From william at elan.net Wed Jun 18 15:45:25 2003 From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [dbwg] parent org idea / referral server field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If its in the schema already and part of database, maybe you should consider this to be a good time to use it (then only work necessary is to change whois service to make use of that) and offer those who have some ip blocks with rwhois and some without a choice if they want all ip blocks in rwhois or if they want second org setup. What you originally wrote as far as doing it with only org and then in 3 months asking if some want to do it with net - this is just not practical since once you tell people you have to change everything to rwhois or get rid of it, they'll not want to go through it again and change it again just for some blocks. And I know in reality parent org is little more then just database field and whois - you need template changes, concept on how one can create it, etc. I'd propose not immediatly doing that and having it done manually until the system is discussed on the next meeting, but have this available as manual request through registration services (if somebody needs extra org or connect one org to another, they ask registration services and it is done manually). > We agree that the parent org is a good idea. In fact, back in December > 2000, we put this concept into our schema, and it still exists today. Our > intention was to introduce this ability in the future. Although this > functionality has not been a high priority for the Engineering staff at > this point in time, we still intend to further explore this sometime in > the future. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN From David.Poch at telus.com Thu Jun 19 17:32:40 2003 From: David.Poch at telus.com (David Poch) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:32:40 -0600 Subject: FW: [dbwg] parent org idea / referral server field Message-ID: This latest proposal to use a parent / child org ID is a good one, and also enables migration of networks to rWHOIS servers from an existing org ID rather than a flash cut, which is un-desireable. Comments? -----Original Message----- From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:45 PM To: ginny at arin.net Cc: dbwg at arin.net Subject: Re: [dbwg] parent org idea / referral server field If its in the schema already and part of database, maybe you should consider this to be a good time to use it (then only work necessary is to change whois service to make use of that) and offer those who have some ip blocks with rwhois and some without a choice if they want all ip blocks in rwhois or if they want second org setup. What you originally wrote as far as doing it with only org and then in 3 months asking if some want to do it with net - this is just not practical since once you tell people you have to change everything to rwhois or get rid of it, they'll not want to go through it again and change it again just for some blocks. And I know in reality parent org is little more then just database field and whois - you need template changes, concept on how one can create it, etc. I'd propose not immediatly doing that and having it done manually until the system is discussed on the next meeting, but have this available as manual request through registration services (if somebody needs extra org or connect one org to another, they ask registration services and it is done manually). > We agree that the parent org is a good idea. In fact, back in December > 2000, we put this concept into our schema, and it still exists today. Our > intention was to introduce this ability in the future. Although this > functionality has not been a high priority for the Engineering staff at > this point in time, we still intend to further explore this sometime in > the future. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN From David.Poch at telus.com Thu Jun 19 17:39:11 2003 From: David.Poch at telus.com (David Poch) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:39:11 -0600 Subject: FW: [dbwg] parent org idea / referral server field Message-ID: This latest proposal to use a parent / child org ID is a good one, and also enables migration of networks to rWHOIS servers from an existing org ID rather than a flash cut, which is un-desireable. -----Original Message----- From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:45 PM To: ginny at arin.net Cc: dbwg at arin.net Subject: Re: [dbwg] parent org idea / referral server field If its in the schema already and part of database, maybe you should consider this to be a good time to use it (then only work necessary is to change whois service to make use of that) and offer those who have some ip blocks with rwhois and some without a choice if they want all ip blocks in rwhois or if they want second org setup. What you originally wrote as far as doing it with only org and then in 3 months asking if some want to do it with net - this is just not practical since once you tell people you have to change everything to rwhois or get rid of it, they'll not want to go through it again and change it again just for some blocks. And I know in reality parent org is little more then just database field and whois - you need template changes, concept on how one can create it, etc. I'd propose not immediatly doing that and having it done manually until the system is discussed on the next meeting, but have this available as manual request through registration services (if somebody needs extra org or connect one org to another, they ask registration services and it is done manually). > We agree that the parent org is a good idea. In fact, back in December > 2000, we put this concept into our schema, and it still exists today. Our > intention was to introduce this ability in the future. Although this > functionality has not been a high priority for the Engineering staff at > this point in time, we still intend to further explore this sometime in > the future. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > ARIN From ddiller at cogentco.com Mon Jun 23 19:48:13 2003 From: ddiller at cogentco.com (Dave Diller) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:48:13 -0400 Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Change Announcement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EF791BD.7050408@cogentco.com> > ReferralServer: rwhois://192.0.2.11:4321/ > ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.arin.net:4321/ > ReferralServer: rwhois.example.net:4321 > ReferralServer: rwhois://whois.example.com:43/ Hey Ginny, How will output on a netblock appear? Will this appear as "OrgReferralServer" in much the same way that an AbuseHandle for the ORG shows up an an OrgAbuseHandle? This would seem to be the simplest way, even though it effectively highlights Wm's point about having a ReferralServer listed on a block that may not be using RWHOIS (non-issue for me) But is that truly even a technical issue? It strikes me mostly as an issue from a clarity perspective. If you do a whois on a block, and get back the standard output with (NET-AA-BB-CC-DD-1) for the assignee, then the tool should do a second whois on that to get the name of the company using the block. It'll be odd if this output has the OrgReferral attribute in it as I am assuming above, but by that point you've already arrived at the answer to your query. Clearly, since most of us surveyed were fine with an ORG attribute instead of a NET attribute, it would appear to be a non-issue. No need to make a mountain out of an already surveyed molehill. Also, I assume you will also be manually removing the 'legacy' comments on netblocks like the below, once implementation is complete? Comment: Reassignment information for this block can be found at Comment: rwhois.cogentco.com 4321 -dd From ginny at arin.net Tue Jun 24 13:40:58 2003 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [dbwg] WHOIS Change Announcement In-Reply-To: <3EF791BD.7050408@cogentco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Dave Diller wrote: > > > ReferralServer: rwhois://192.0.2.11:4321/ > > ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.arin.net:4321/ > > ReferralServer: rwhois.example.net:4321 > > ReferralServer: rwhois://whois.example.com:43/ > > > Hey Ginny, > > How will output on a netblock appear? Will this appear as "OrgReferralServer" > in much the same way that an AbuseHandle for the ORG shows up an an > OrgAbuseHandle? This would seem to be the simplest way, even though it > effectively highlights Wm's point about having a ReferralServer listed on a > block that may not be using RWHOIS (non-issue for me) Since the Referral Server is an attribute of the Org, it will be include as part of the Org display. We have added another blank line to help it stand out. As an example: OrgName: Example, Inc. OrgID: EXAMPLE Address: 123 Main Street City: Chantilly StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20152 Country: US Comment: RegDate: 1998-04-03 Updated: 2002-11-05 ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.example.net:4321/ ... If there is a ReferralServer, it will be displayed on org, net and AS queries. [...] > Also, I assume you will also be manually removing the 'legacy' comments on > netblocks like the below, once implementation is complete? > > Comment: Reassignment information for this block can be found at > Comment: rwhois.cogentco.com 4321 > We decided to not remove the Comments. You can either submit a template with 'Public Comments: NONE' or if the comments are on many records, submit an ad hoc request to hostmaster to remove them. Ginny