INTERNIC Question

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

I've got a quickie, and I am not sure where to ask it.

I am in the process of writing a domain-name registration tracking system,
and I want to put some stuff in the Headers so that I can add our internal
tracking numbers on it so that when we get a response, I can have a
process look it over and decide what do do with it.

In specific, I put

X-NAC-DTS-Number: [a alex-generated number]

in the header, and it didn't get returned.

So, my questions are:

1) Should the Internic be retaining this X Headers?

2) Why can't the Internet put interesting things in the header so that we
could unifiy the way we look at them to automatically process them? Like:

X-Internic-Response: Registered

or

X-Internic-Response: Not-Registered-Already-taken

etc?

Comments welcome.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                  Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
       I route, therefore I am.
       Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member
               Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer
     Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
Don't choose a spineless ISP! We have more backbone! http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2

I've got a quickie, and I am not sure where to ask it.

I am in the process of writing a domain-name registration tracking system,
and I want to put some stuff in the Headers so that I can add our internal
tracking numbers on it so that when we get a response, I can have a
process look it over and decide what do do with it.

In specific, I put

X-NAC-DTS-Number: [a alex-generated number]

in the header, and it didn't get returned.

So, my questions are:

1) Should the Internic be retaining this X Headers?

I doubt they even parse the headers. To retain them they'd have to parse
them and process in real-time. I am reasonably certain that doesn't happen.

2) Why can't the Internet put interesting things in the header so that we
could unifiy the way we look at them to automatically process them? Like:

X-Internic-Response: Registered

or

X-Internic-Response: Not-Registered-Already-taken

etc?

Comments welcome.

Actually, a "TAG" field in their template (guaranteed to be returned
unmolested), and a "Response" field (containing a restricted set of reply
codes) would do the job.

What I'd do is put the domain in the subject line, and then parse that on the
return. That gives you the tuple you need (domain, tracking number) which
then can be matched against subsequent messages concerning the same domain.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that the format of responses won't
change out from under you.

This is one of the problems with "human-readable" as opposed to
machine-defined systems.

3

Good question. I posed that same question in person at NANOG 9 to the
people responsible for the system at the InterNIC. Their response was that
it was a good idea. Suprisingly, they haven't acted on the suggestion. I
guess I should just send them more money and pray.

Jim Browne jbrowne@jbrowne.com
         "Lesson: PC's have a `keyboard lock' switch, and it works."
   - Kevin Brick, after RMA'ing a motherboard with a "bad keyboard connector"

4

Should they? Sure, why not. :slight_smile: But they don't. However, subject lines
tend to be left intact, so you can use them for tracking purposes (I built
a tracking system this way, but it gets outdated every time they change
the templates they send back for acks, completion messages, etc).

If you're really trying to build a unified tracking system for InterNIC
messages, you're going to complain about a lot of the same things I did:

- Why isn't there a simple connection-oriented protocol in place for
  communicating this stuff instead of using email and templates? I asked
  this question around last August of Network Solutions, and they said
  "Real Soon Now". Hasn't happened yet. I've given up hope on it.

- Why can't they tag their email in a machine-readable manner? Tacking on
  a single -reliable- header (X-InterNIC-Data: or some such) which
  contains machine-parsable information about the message would be a
  godsend for people trying to build tracking schemes like this.

- Machine generated messages, for no really good reason, seem to come from
  semi-random addresses (faxmaster, hostmaster, domreg, etc). Why can't
  they pick one, for easy tagging of InterNIC machine-generated email?

I could go on for hours. The email-based system could be usable, but they
refuse to address a number of concerns about it that would greatly ease
the development of reliable tracking mechanisms. A simple, authenticated
client-server protocol for domain and contact management would be a next
logical step, and their email support staff have even suggested that such
a scheme was in the works, but that's never happened either.

But hey, people who can reliably manage domain issues might compete with
WorldNIC. We can't have that, now can we? :wink:

5

1) Should the Internic be retaining this X Headers?

Why not just put your tracking info in the message body, *before* the
InterNIC template? That WILL be retained, and the reg process will
proceed normally.

6

Can someone point me in the direction of some good white papers where
I could pick up some knowledge on BGP specifically in regards to
transit routing.

I am working with 3 local ISPs here all connected to different
backbones. We are all going to be peering at one central office with
T-1 lines running between each location.

Our intention is to allow each others traffic to flow through whoever
is the closest route. However I have only recently gotten into BGP.

Any help is appreciated.

7

It's been awhile since I messed with this, but I seem to remember
something that worked like this. After you submit the template, you
should get back a receipt with the NIC tracking number in the
subject line. To get status, you finger #######@rs.internic.net ,
or maybe it was ops.internic.net. The result should be easy to
parse cuz it's always in the same format.
   The down side is that you often don't get the receipt in time and
that you're using the Internic's database key instead of your own.
   Have fun,
--Ben Kirkpatrick

8

- Why isn't there a simple connection-oriented protocol in place for
  communicating this stuff instead of using email and templates? I asked
  this question around last August of Network Solutions, and they said
  "Real Soon Now". Hasn't happened yet. I've given up hope on it.

It is actually been deployed and is being used by both worldnic and microsoft's
business server product. However, with the winds of the change occurring over
internet governance, it seems like the registrar/registry thing is the way to
go so there as been more effort spent towards the InterNIC separating these
functions as of late.

- Why can't they tag their email in a machine-readable manner? Tacking on
  a single -reliable- header (X-InterNIC-Data: or some such) which
  contains machine-parsable information about the message would be a
  godsend for people trying to build tracking schemes like this.

I personally think that this header thing is a good idea. But, NSI mgmt needs
to hear it from you. If you think there is a real need for this or any
other ideas, please contact the head of customer programs - Chuck Gomes
(chuckg@Internic.net).

Regards,
Mark

9

I'm thinking maybe machine readbale bodies, using, I dunno... XML
tagging with a standardized, but extensible, DTD; you know, kinda like
MIME? :slight_smile:

This is, after all, fundamentally EDI type stuff.

Cheers,
-- jra

10

finger NIC-#####@rs.internic.net

I think you can also do this for open invoices you have with them,
as well as tickets opened for correspondence with InterNIC staff.

11

I will concur with Mark here. Mr. Gomes does in fact answer e-mail, very
quickly most of the time. :wink: Plus he seems to be eager to help solve problems
and listen to customer input.