Current Meeting Report
Jabber Logs

2.1.3 Cross Registry Information Service Protocol (crisp)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 55th IETF Meeting in Altanta, Georgia USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modifield: 07/29/2002

Ted Hardie <>
Applications Area Director(s):
Ned Freed <>
Patrik Faltstrom <>
Applications Area Advisor:
Patrik Faltstrom <>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:
To Subscribe:
In Body: subscribe
Description of Working Group:
In the standard operation of Internet systems, various labels and data are managed globally -- domain names, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, etc. From time to time, for operational and administrative purposes, users of the Internet need to be able to find and access registered information associated with those labels.

The CRISP (Cross-Registry Information Service Protocol) WG will define a standard mechanism that can be used for finding authoritative information associated with a label, a protocol to transport queries and responses for accessing that information, and a first profile (schema & queries) to support commonly-required queries for domain registration information. Backwards compatibility with existing administrative directory services such as WHOIS is not a goal of this effort. Provisioning of data into registry or registrar systems is likewise out of scope -- CRISP provides a uniform access to and view of data that may be held in disparate backend servers. While the framework created will hopefully be sufficiently flexible to allow re-use by other registries/services with related design criteria, those uses will be deferred to the creation of appropriate schema & query profiles at some future date.

The CRISP service definition will define:

o a standard mechanism that can be used to determine the authoritative server(s) for information about a given label

o a single mandatory to implement protocol for transporting application queries and responses, including

o expression of input query

o expression of result sets

o standard expression of error conditions

o authentication and verification of data integrity

o specific data types and queries to be supported in the first supported registry service: a global service for domain registration information access


o Finalized requirements document for the CRISP service

o Document specifying a new protocol, or the use of an existing one, for providing CRISP service (application transport).

o Document specifying required schema elements and queries for domain registration administrative directory queries.

Input documents:

draft-newton-ir-dir-requirements-* draft-newton-iris* draft-hall-ldap-whois*

Goals and Milestones:
OCT 02  Submit requirements document as an Informational RFC
NOV 02  Submit first draft of protocol (use) specification
NOV 02  Submit first draft of domain registration administrative directory services required schema element specification.
APR 03  Submit revised protocol (use) specification document as Proposed Standard
APR 03  Submit revised draft of domain registration administrative directory services required schema element specification as Proposed Standard.
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-lw-dns-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-lw-asn-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-lw-ipv6-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-lw-user-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-lw-ipv4-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-00.txt
  • No Request For Comments

    Current Meeting Report

    Minutes, Cross Registry Information Service Protocol WG (crisp)
    Tuesday, November 19 at 1930-2200
    CHAIR:	Ted Hardie <>
    Minutes edited by : Ted Hardie
    Minute takers: George Michaelson, David Blacka
    AGENDA: (post-bashing) 
    Agenda Bash, 5 mins (Chair)
    Evaluation Process, 60 mins (Chair)
    IRIS Diffs, 20 mins (Andy Newton)
    LW Diffs, 20 mins (Eric Hall)
    Requirements doc changes, 30 minutes. (Andy Newton)
    Milestone & Charter Review, 10 mins (Chair)
    During the discussion of the evaluation process, the chair proposed that the 
    requirements draft be re-written to distinguish between protocol 
    requirements and service requirements, and to eliminate all 
    MUST/MAY/SHOULD language from the service agreements.  Those present 
    agreed to this change, and the document author will go forward with 
    re-drafting and forward to the list.
    During discussion of the evaluation process, those present felt the best 
    strategy to be making an informal matrix matching requirements to 
    protocol capabilities, evaluate according to that matrix, dropping or 
    publishing as experimental candidate protocols which were not 
    selected.  After confirmation by the working group mailing list, this will go 
    Rick Wesson volunteered to maintain the matrix, should the working group 
    mailing list confirm the view of those present.
    Andy Newton then presented the IRIS diffs, most of which reflect changes 
    based on lessons learned during implementation of the code base 
    documented at .  Slides containing details of 
    the changes will be made available for the proceedings.
    Eric Hall presented changes to the LDAP-whois documents.  Primary change has 
    been split of monolithic document into sections; two intended as WG 
    documents; four as experimental.  Current issues: 
    internationalization, client input methods, SRV, the use of server data 
    stores, query output, and structured data elements.  Those present 
    discussed search strategies in some detail, both for 
    internationalized strings and for the use of specific elements (such email 
    addresses).  For the internationalization issues, it was felt that the 
    problem was common across uses of LDAP and that matching the solution used 
    here to the common LDAP solution was important.  Kurt noted that the LDAP 
    community is working on the problem.
    Those present then discussed how some of the security and privacy 
    considerations worked in this context.  Eric Hall agreed that 
    redrafting the language around those issues would be appropriate and he 
    will revise the drafts as appropriate.
    Andy Newton then led a discussion of the requirements document issues 
    which were raised during the last call period.  This discussion was a 
    detailed review, resulting in the following action items:
    Andy will add a description of DDoS attacks to the security section.
    Eric and Marcos Sanz will help redraft the paragraph on using the DNS to 
    discover the appropriate CRISP servers.
    Those present agreed that specific language about abusive users would be 
    added to the draft, and that such language would reference abuse 
    definitions being service specific (as defined in a document like an AUP).
    Those present agreed to shift the current escrow language to a more 
    general requirement for serialization.  Future language will note that this 
    may be useful for escrow, but is not sufficient for itself.  
    Discussion of the service requirements for escrow indicated that a range of 
    perceived need would make it difficult to capture the escrow service 
    requirements in this document.
    Ted and Andy will draft new language on how error messages to query 
    access denials should work and post it to the list.  This language will 
    make the explicit point that the protocol must be capable of 
    supporting access authentication but that the service operators use of that 
    is according to local policy.
    Those present carried on a lively discussion of query referral, but did not 
    come to a consensus.  Objections were raised that the requirements were 
    presuming or imposing a particular query distribution mechanism.  Rick 
    Wesson volunteered to write more on the subject for the group.  Those 
    present did agree to split the protocol requirements for querying a 
    particular service operator from those applied when a query applied to 
    Those present then discussed the question of settlements.   It was agreed 
    that this question would be set aside until further discussion of the 
    distributed query mechanism could take place.
    The group then discussed resetting milestones.  Jan '03 was proposed as the 
    milestone for the requirements document; Feb '03 for the protocol use 
    specifications (which will be inputs into the matrix to be maintained by 
    Rick Wesson).  The domain spec will be complete by Vienna IETF.


    CRISP Requirements Discussion
    IRIS - from -00 to -01