[76484] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: no whois info ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Sun Dec 12 07:49:15 2004
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:46:38 +0000
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20041211170734.GA25161@gsp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On 11 December 2004 12:07 -0500 Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> I don't want to turn this into a domain policy discussion,
Ditto. I'd add one thing though: allowing anonymous registration is not
necessarily the same thing as allowing all details of registration to be
publicly queryable under all circumstances. In any case (whether happily or
sadly) local laws can often get in the way of total openness.
The operational aspect of this I think is as follows: if an operator had a
problem with a network endpoint in 1995, then there was a good chance whois
<domainname> would reach someone clueful, as the majority of network
endpoints were clueful (for some reading thereof); hence whois <domainname>
was useful for network debugging. In 2004, I'd suggest the wider
penetration of the internet means whois <domainname> on its own is not a
useful operational tool any more. Even whois -h rir <inetnum> is becoming
less useful, and to an extent whois <asnumber>. The argument for people not
wanting to put personal information up on domain name registrations is I'd
have to say a little similar to the reason some providers don't like having
their (true) NOC number on whois <provider.net>; i.e. they don't want junk
calls. Which leaves you in essence with hop-by-hop debugging according to
peering agreements. Or "is anyone here from $provider" messages.
Alex
