1 / 12

Enhancing the Internet’s Administrative Look-up Service

Enhancing the Internet’s Administrative Look-up Service. Mark Kosters Andrew Newton VeriSign Labs NANOG 23, October 2001. UWhat?. Universal Whois VeriSign has committed undertaking in agreement with ICANN Public consultations (3 formal, ongoing informal)

keely-graham
Download Presentation

Enhancing the Internet’s Administrative Look-up Service

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Enhancing the Internet’s Administrative Look-up Service Mark Kosters Andrew Newton VeriSign Labs NANOG 23, October 2001

  2. UWhat? • Universal Whois • VeriSign has committed undertaking in agreement with ICANN • Public consultations (3 formal, ongoing informal) • business, intellectual property holders (Aug 2001) • international input (May be at Nov 2001 ICANN meeting) • civil liberties, other ngo’s (TBD) • Informal Meetings • RIPE (Oct 2001) • NANOG (Oct 2001) • ARIN (Oct 2001) • APRICOT (Mar 2002)

  3. UWho • universal whois • non-centralized • not specific to particular tld registry • non-proprietary, open standard as outcome

  4. VeriSign’s role • coordinating • commitment • listening

  5. Part of a bigger picture • Protocol, if any, to be developed within IETF standards body: • whoisfix bof @ IETF51 • ietf-whois@imc.org • ietf-not43@lists.research.netsol.com • Policy – ICANN’s role

  6. Exploring Enhancements • Perhaps the best methods are not on port 43. • Points of exploration • Referral LDAP Service – take advantage of the many LDAP standards. • XDAP – looking at a layered XML approach similar to EPP. • This work actually started before VeriSign committed to Appendix W.

  7. Goals • Re-use known technology. • Don’t invent too much • Does the world really need another application transport? • Does the world really need another schema language? • Structured queries and structured results for better machine readability. • Referrals to bridge domain registries and registrars and other needs for entity reference. • Client authentication to address privacy concerns • Provide the mechanism, not the policy • Toolkits should be readily available.

  8. Referral LDAP Service • Uses LDAP to serve up domain information • Many, many server implementations • Many, many tools and toolkits • No new objectclasses, attributes, or syntaxes needed for our implementation. • Works with LDAPv2 and LDAPv3. • http://www.ldap.research.netsol.com • DIT structure is outlined in draft-newton-ldap-whois-01

  9. Our LDAP Work To Date • A registry LDAP server • 4 DIT’s for com,net,org, and edu • DIT for nameservers • Over 32+ million domains • A registrar LDAP server • 4 DIT’s for com,net,org, and edu • DIT’s for nameservers and contacts • Referrals to registrants • Demonstration of access control • Web site • Web interface to conduct various LDAP queries. • Examples on using ‘ldapsearch’ • LDAP-to-whois gateway for domains • Open-sourced. • Uses OpenLDAP.

  10. Our LDAP Work… • Client code samples • Open-sourced graphical clients

  11. XDAP • Only in “draft” form at present • Uses layering approach • Similar to EPP in methodology • Uses XML Namespaces for extensibility • Uses XML Schema for definition • Perhaps see what PROVREG produces and re-use some of their object definitions • Multiple XML layers • A common schema for talking about commands, authentication, referrals, etc… • Information specific layers for refining queries and defining results. • Application transport agnostic.

  12. Further Exploration • RIR and IRR uses • Can their data/needs be accommodated using the current approaches? • Should this be explored? • Common indexing. • More requirements gathering.

More Related