To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, ietf-whois@imc.org
From:
Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>
Date:
Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:55:28 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<039801c119f1$22c6a120$040a000a@RRADER2K>; from ross@tucows.com at 2001-07-31 14:46:40 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: IETF-51 WhoisFix BoF Announcement
On 2001-07-31 14:46:40 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > Correct me if my recollection is wrong, but the last go-round of this > was severely bogged down by a focus on the protocol specified in RFC > 954 when in fact the discussion was more suited to the concepts and > facilities presented in 1580 (starting on page 38). Is it the intent > to focus on the latter than the former this time around? Hmm... I wouldn't necessarily have a problem focusing on the *concepts* behind 1580, but the *details* have mostly changed, I think. Does anyone run a mail Whois server these days? ;) > While I couldn't agree more that changes are due, it strikes me that > updating 954 may prove to be next to impossible because of the hidden > install base... I wonder, would it make sense to consider putting together a survey of Whois (and similar) servers and clients, to get a feel for what Whois really means these days? It would be nice to know how it is actually used, so we don't spend too much time scratching our heads. If people consider this a good idea, I can go ahead and present a brief summary of what I think should be in such a document. > Sorry if this is off-topic for this list - I won't be in London to > speak my piece... This seems totally on-topic to me! At least, for the Whois BOF. Should we take the ProvReg WG off of the recipient list? -- Shane