2.1.3 Cross Registry Information Service Protocol (crisp)

Last Modified: 2003-05-12

April Marine <april.marine@nominum.com>
Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Applications Area Director(s):
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Applications Area Advisor:
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
To Subscribe: ietf-not43-request@lists.verisignlabs.com
In Body: subscribe
Archive: https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
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:

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-requirements-06.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-02.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-crisp-internet-resource-number-req-00.txt
  • No Request For Comments

    Current Meeting Report

    s.Crisp WG - IETF 57 - July 16 2003 - Vienna
    CHAIRS: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> April Marine 
    SCRIBE: David Knight <dknight@ripe.net(edited for length by April)
    - Agenda Bashing
     Ned (sheparding AD) is on a leave, John Klensin will stand in
     George Michaelson: Cathy Murphy should make a contribution.
     Cathy Murphy: In the AOB
    - IESG Feedback on Requirements ID (10 Minutes)
     Document was sent, there was some feedback regarding privacy issues.
     Concern raised by security ADs: no mechanism in the protocol for 
    someone who had priviliged access to see what was priviliged and what was 
    not. Protocol requirements should include something that allowed for this 
    kind of distinguishment.
     Group discussed, especially experiences from PROVREG group. Andy 
    Newton, requirements doc editor, said he could send proposed text to 
    address this to the list for review.
    - FIRS Matrix Compliance (35 Minutes) Peter Gietz DAASI
     Peter presented the requirements, with comments indicating where the 
    requirement might not have been clear. FIRS met all requirements, but it 
    emerged that LDAP would actually need extensions written to handle some of 
    them. These extensions are not yet specified, and so the FIRS work would 
    have to include that specification.
     Along the way, in discussion of re IDNs, Patrick noted the 
    following regarding a change from the UNICODE Consortium:
     Patrik Folstrom: If the client is using UNICODE 4 and the request is 
    normalised you will not get a match. The errors that the unicode 
    consortium is creating can only increase in size. They have changed their 
    definition of what stable means. Hope that the IAB can present a 
    document on this issue. You don't know today what codepoints will be 
    problematic in future. The IDN docs don't talk about this. We thought 
    stable meant something else. Storing things directly in the 
    normalised string is soemthing we should think about.
     The conclusion is that the IETF is using Unicode in the wrong context of 
    what we thought.
    - IRIS Matrix Compliance: Ed Lewis, Scott Hollenbeck:
     Ed: Started reading in March, couldn't grasp all the 
    requirements. Points out some requirements that were confusing.
     Were there any NOs?
     Ed: yes, in regard to relay bags
     Scott: Presented slides covering the messages sent to the mailing list and 
    discussed his issues with the matrix in general.
    - Next Steps and Milestones
     Ted: In San Francisco we spoke about next steps. Agreed we would first 
    evaluate protocol requirements, if we have a winner then we stop 
    processing and move on. Sounds like there needs to be one change in the 
    doc, to describe how that particular function is done, meaning what LDAP 
    extensions that may be required to implement FIRS.
     Second step is to look at service requiremets. This is harder than the 
    protcol requirements, we need more justification for each of the 
    responses on the service side. We need volunteers who are willing to write 
    fairly comprehensively, do we have someone willing to do this for FIRS?
     Is there anyone willing to do this for the IRIS side?
     No volunteers came forward at this point. Some discussion of other ways to 
    proceed, including putting up test implementations of the protocols. 
    However, Ted points out that that is a lot of work and expense to go to 
    just to avoid writing. John Klensin points out that if we don't decide 
    something soon, some other group will move forward along their own path and 
    we'll have lost the opportunity.
     A straw poll of those present showed a strong majority of those 
    expressing an opinion in favor of IRIS.
     The group agreed, then, on the following next steps;
     - the FIRS LDAP extensions doc would be written, completing the 
    specificaions for both protocol choices
     - a 3 week discussion period on the list would take place, starting at the 
    time the last doc was available
     - at the end of that 3 weeks, a call for consensus on the protocol to be 
    recommended would take place.
    - AOB
     Cathy Murphy: A new requirements draft is being coordinated amongst the 
    RIRS, this is for resource number space, ASNs IPs, this is in final 
    review, the draft itself will be on the table before Minneapolis.
     ?: Will you be asking for charter revision?
     Cathy: Probably If you want to float it first for review that would be ok.


    None received.