RE: Merging RRP and Whois

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Isn't the RRP (and therefore, won't the EPP likely be) a semi-private
protocol, whereas whois is inherently public in nature?

<  -----Original Message-----
<  From: owner-ietf-whois@mail.imc.org
<  [mailto:owner-ietf-whois@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of George Belotsky
<  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:00 PM
<  To: Patrik Fältström; Paul George
<  Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; ietf-whois@imc.org
<  Subject: Re: Merging RRP and Whois
<
<
<  It would not be necessary to run the new protocol on port 43.  The new
<  protocol, however, should become the standard for future Whois-type
<  queries.
<
<  Backwards compatibility with the current Whois should definitely be
<  maintained.  Fortunately, with the current Whois standard this is not
<  a problem.
<
<  The existing protocol on port 43 can remain as long as needed.  All
<  future extensions, however, should be to the new protocol.  In this
<  way, we would avoid forcing the development of incompatible and
<  diverging methods for accessing the same data.  We would also avoid
<  having to solve twice a large set set of very difficult problems, such
<  as authentication, security, privacy and internationalization.
<
<
<
<  On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:25:11PM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
<  > At 12.37 -0500 01-01-24, George Belotsky wrote:
<  > >It would not take too much effort to simply use the Whois-like
<  > >features (perhaps with a little extension) of the RRP to provide Whois
<  > >services to end users.
<  >
<  > I think this is a VERY interesting path that you should consider
<  > seriously! Including anonymous access, and ability for registrants
<  > (yes, registrants) to because of data protection laws update whatever
<  > is necessary in the registry database in the case of a thick
<  > registry.  Also, this connection might be needed also for DNSSEC key
<  > signing issues...
<  >
<  > I.e. if you do a protocol, and need overlapping functions, see if you
<  > should not do _one_...
<  >
<  > What goes on port 43 is a completely different story, and it should
<  > stay that way.
<  >
<  >    paf -- with my AD hat on as you can see in the signature
<  >
<  >
<  > --
<  > Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>       Internet Engineering Task Force
<  > Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
<  > Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
<  >         PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC
<
<  --
<  -----------------------------
<  George Belotsky
<  Senior Software Architect
<  Register.com, inc.
<  george@register.com
<  212-798-9127 (phone)
<  212-798-9876 (fax)