[lir-wg] rfc-ignorant.org

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Havard Eidnes wrote in reply to Pieterjan d'Hertog:

> > What about RFC954 dating from 1985...
> >
> > <snip>
> > WHO SHOULD BE IN THE DATABASE
> >
> >    DCA requests that each individual with a directory on an ARPANET or
> >    MILNET host, who is capable of passing traffic across the DoD
> > </snip>
> >
> > Shouldn't it be made obsolete?
>
> I'm however not aware of any attempt at re-specifying the WHOIS protocol
> itself, so that the above document can be moved to historic status; if
> you want to play along those lines, "feel free".

Actually, there is:

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-campbell-whois-00.txt

I've attempted to define the WHOIS (actually 'nicname') protocol to be
independent of any expectations of output formats or what is in the
database, and keep it to a simple question/answer protocol with a few
basic niceties (such as 'help').

Another draft was put forward on the ietf-whois list some time ago which
explicitly shifted 954 to Historic, although I cannot find this as an
internet draft at the present time.

> However, I'm not sure a re-specification of the WHOIS protocol is going
> to quiet the rfc-ignorant.org folks' on this point.

On this matter, it will, however they will find other aspects to complain
about.

> The question appears to be: "must there be registered at least one
> e-mail address per assigned address block", be that in either ARIN, RIPE
> or APNICs whois databases.

In the original mail to lir-wg, the range in question meets this criteria
(the tech-c has an email address, the adminc-c does not), hence rfci's
listing is incorrect by their own cited policy ;)

-- 
                             Bruce Campbell                            RIPE
                   Systems/Network Engineer                             NCC
                 www.ripe.net - PGP562C8B1B             Operations/Security