|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: whois broke again?
Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Mon, 21 February 2000, [email protected] wrote: > > Yes there are interesting scoping issues. Yes there are concerns wrt > > evil people and tolerent applications. But this tactic clearly puts the > > onus on the people in control of the useage, not some centralized repository. > > That sounds great, except the time when WHOIS is most important is when > the contact has totally screwed up their site and can't be reached by any > in-band network. The nice thing about WHOIS is it tends to be out-of-band > with respect to most screw-ups. The notable exception is when NSI screws-up. > Not exactly out-of-band, as it requires the network to be up to special servers, which are notoriously single points of failure. Meanwhile, Bill's proposal _is_ out-of-band to the addressed destination, so long as they have an off-site DNS secondary. I like Bill's proposal a lot, except that the speed of propagation is kinda slow. Look how fast DNSsec has been deployed :-( > The open question is why can RIPE get people to put good data in their database, > and NSI can't manage to keep the little correct data they have uncorrupted? Which is one of the reasons that I proposed the Operators version of OpenWhois, as these will be the ones we've needed to use, and thus will be kept more up-to-date. (At least we can pressure the smaller set of miscreants directly.) Unlike NSI, we'd have an incentive to keep the data up-to-date, as our focus is keeping the network going, rather than raking in one time charges. That's why I like a central repository. Verification is also in one place. So, I think we need both -- whois and DNS contacts. I expect that RIPE also exerts some leverage, but have never asked.... Or many Europeans are just better behaved than Yankees? [email protected] Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
|