Re: DNSO Announcement about WHOIS survey

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>CC: ietf-whois@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: DNSO Announcement about WHOIS survey
>References: <200108011414.f71EE5N32211@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Thanks Eric.... I can confirm we have your comments .. much appreciated.
>
>As Chair of the WHOIS Committee, I am confident we would welcome all comments
>(even technical input) as to potential work areas for the 
>advancement of WHOIS.
>We have focused on Domain Names, but a number of respondents have given
>suggestions for a domain name "availability" protocol (and reduce 
>the (ab)use of
>WHOIS) - such as "is a name available" Yes/No; standardised formats for Domain
>and IP address results.
>
>At the last NC meeting a resolution was passed where the WHOIS Committee is
>empowered to invite ASO and PSO members to participate in the consultation
>process.
>
>At this stage we are on a "fact-find" to identify how WHOIS is used, 
>where it is
>deficient and where improvements could potentially be made.  We 
>intend to submit
>our report to the ASO and PSO for their consideration once finished.
>I am based in the UK and have been invited to the provreg meeting, I'm willing
>to stay over to meet with you on Thursday if that would be welcomed.
>
>Best regards
>
>Paul
>
>Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>
>>  The survey solicits a response via form. I submitted my response via email.
>>  The person I suggest sending email responses to is Paul Kane, who can be
>>  reached at: paul.kane@xxxxxx I know my response was forwarded to him.
>>
>>  In my response I took pains to distinguish between operational requirements
>>  which are met on port 43, and other requirements which need not be met on
>>  port 43, and may be better met by another protocol on another port.
>>
>>  Knowing that the author of the survey is the DNSO, I did not address the
>>  aspects of a survey intended to inform an ASO-interested, as well as a
>>  DNSO-interested reader. Ross is correct in pointing out this limitation
>>  of the DNSO's survey. There are other limitations as well. Those known to
>>  me I mentioned in my response, which I'll post to this list if there is
>>  interest.
>>
>>  NOTE WELL: the IETF-51 WHOISFix BOF announcement, agenda, proposed charter,
>>  proposed timeline and deliverables, are self-contained and will be available
>>  at the IETF-51 Agenda URL [1] shortly, having been sent to the secretariate
>>  on 07/30.
>>
>>  Eric
>>
>>  [1] http://www.ietf.org/meetings/wg_agenda_51.html


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium