June 6, CRISP Overview and Update Andrew Newton VeriSign Labs

June 6, What’s in a Name? CRISP – Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol Acknowledges that domain registries are not the only types of registries needed for the operational infrastructure of the Internet. Focusing on domain name registries while accepting the responsibility to be extensible.

June 6, Some Items covered by CRISP Access –Different answers for different levels of access –The ability to understand the access limits –Controls aimed at preventing data mining Standard queries and responses Referrals –Indicating where to find data –Passing state with referrals –Using DNS to locate data

June 6, Items NOT covered by CRISP Escrow –CRISP recognizes the need for data serialization, but that is only one piece of the puzzle for escrow. Communications between registry operators –CRISP is about communicating with the end-user Definitions of access levels –The CRISP protocol will be able to support multiple levels of access, but it does not define them.

June 6, CRISP Goals The protocol should define the mechanisms to allow for various policies. The protocol should not define policy. Allow for data to be decentralized, but define how to find it. Define uniform queries and responses. Provide access control mechanisms. Enable better internationalization.

June 6, CRISP non-Goals Backwards compatibility with nicname/whois on port 43. Provisioning or modification of data.

June 6, CRISP Requirements draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-05 – crisp-requirements-05.txthttp:// crisp-requirements-05.txt Lists the consensus of the working group on what needs to be done. The extensive effort documents: –the protocol requirements –the service context in which they occur

June 6, Requirements Sections The CRISP functional requirements are broken down into two sections: –requirements that are general to many types of Internet registries –requirements that are specific to domain name registries The CRISP feature requirements are derived from the functional requirements.

June 6, What is the WG doing now? The working group has reached consensus on the requirements and has asked for review by the IESG. There are two technical protocol proposals before the working group. A matrix has been created to judge the proposals against the requirements.

June 6, The Two Proposals IRIS –draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-01 FIRS –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01 –draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-01

June 6, Other Work There are discussions with the address registries regarding their requirements. –And they have reviewed the CRISP requirements and are reviewing the protocol proposals. Two tangentially related drafts: –draft-daigle-iris-credreg-00 –draft-newton-iris-lightweight-00

June 6, IRIS XML-based –Uses XML Schemas for definition. –Uses XML namespaces for dividing the various types of registries. Queries and results are explicit in the XML syntax. Uses BEEP as the default transport. –Which uses SASL for authentication.

June 6, FIRS LDAP-based –Uses a mixture of new object classes and currently defined object classes. –Uses different branches of the DIT for dividing the various types of registries. Queries use the LDAP query syntax. LDAP has some basic authentication but also uses SASL for newer methods.

June 6, SASL Simple Authentication and Security Layer Defines a common framework for various authentication methods and security facilities. –SSL/TLS for client & server authentication and encryption with digital certificates. –MD5 Digest authentication for sending passwords over an unencrypted session. –One-Time-Password authentication for limited client or server trust. –And anonymous for no passwords.

June 6, All this technical jargon is interesting, but what does it mean to a policy maker?

June 6, More Possibilities The CRISP working group is building a better lock… But they will not be making the decisions about who gets the keys. To bridge the gap between protocol and policy, a document describing what is technically possible may aid in developing policy.