North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internic hosage (fwd)

  • From: Dean Robb
  • Date: Sat Mar 21 21:42:15 1998

At 16:24 3/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>Eric Eden, Internic:
>>>>In this case we removed the host and notified the contact of the
>>>>host because it is not currently serving any domain names or
>>>>networks in our database.

>[Not because there was anything "false" about it. It is still served up by

*Sigh*.  The host at InterNIC was registered with a false IP address and a
false DNS provider.  The Tonic entry was correct.  How hard is this to

>>>Dean Robb:
>>>Most excellent.  Now, what would you have done if it was that
>>>had provided the false information?
>I have to question why people intentionally supply false information.
>Perhaps to avoid harassment from radical and misguided people?  I have to
>presume in this case that Mr. Robb considers himself the sole judge of
>appropriateness of the entity.  Given that was perfectly legit,
>except for some cruftiness, I don't think we can really trust his judgement
>on such matters.

1.  Fortunately, no one is asking you to trust my judgement.  Not, of
course, that yours is provably better since you provably don't know what
you're talking about.

2.  I do not consider myself sole judge of anything (except my behavior and
[temporarily] that of my infant son.  I point you to RFCs 2050, 1032, 1033,
920, 1173 and 1174 (that I know of offhand) that require current and
correct NIC and WhoIs information from the registrant/owner of a domain.  I
quote in whole 2 paragraphs from the current NSI Registration Agreement:

K.      Warranty. Registrant warrants by submitting this Registration
Agreement that, to the best of Registrant's knowledge and belief, the
information submitted herein is true and correct, and that any future
changes to this information will be provided to NSI in a timely manner
according to the domain name modification procedures in place at that
time. Breach of this warranty will constitute a material breach. 

L.      Revocation. Registrant agrees that NSI may delete a
Registrant's domain name if this Registration Agreement, or subsequent
modification(s) thereto, contains false or misleading information, or
conceals or omits any information NSI would likely consider material
to its decision to approve this Registration Agreement. 

So you see, it's not ME being a judge, it's following the rules of the
Internet and InterNIC.  Really, you should be more familiar with the RFCs
and InterNIC guidelines if you run an ISP and consult.  It helps to know
the material you're consulting about.
>This brings up an issue with whois databases that is relevant to nanog:
>Who should have access to whois contact information and its misuse.

A valid point of discussion.  Be sure to include the members of the IS,
IETF, et al that made that provision part of the Internet Standards RFCs.

>Perhaps we need to have a way to authenticate and limit who can get phone
>numbers and email addresses from the whois database, in order to prevent
>the kind of harassment and abuse apparently exercised by Mr. Robb.

Ah, now we see a slanderous comment!  Prove I have engaged in any form of
harassment or abuse, sir.  Otherwise, we can only conclude that you are a
fool, and a liar, and an "anti-anti-spammer terrorist".  Welcome to ad

There is a reasonable debate that can be held regarding privacy issues and
directory services.  There are a couple of RFCs (whose numbers I don't have
at hand) on this issue.  I'll not respond to Mr. Anderson on the matter
though...he hurt my feewings.

Spam:  it's not just for breakfast anymore....

Dean Robb
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]