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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 10:46:02PM -0400, Al Reuben wrote:
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. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
At 22:46 -0400 5/27/98, Al Reuben wrote:
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:
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"
On Wed, 27 May 1998, Al Reuben wrote:
1) Should the Internic be retaining this X Headers?
Should they? Sure, why not. :-) 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? ;-) -- -------------------. emarshal at logic.net .--------------------------------- Edward S. Marshall `-----------------------' http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ Linux labyrinth 2.1.101 #2 SMP Sun May 10 22:34:20 GMT 1998 i586 unknown 11:15pm up 7 days, 21 min, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.04, 0.01
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 On Wed, 27 May 1998, Edward S. Marshall wrote: )- 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.
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:14:52AM -0700, Ben Kirkpatrick wrote:
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.
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. -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 11:27:13PM -0500, Edward S. Marshall wrote:
- 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 -- Mark Kosters markk@internic.net +1 703 925 6874 InterNIC Registration Services PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Mark Kosters wrote:
- 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).
I'm thinking maybe machine readbale bodies, using, I dunno... XML tagging with a standardized, but extensible, DTD; you know, kinda like MIME? :-) This is, after all, fundamentally EDI type stuff. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Mark Kosters wrote:
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
I will concur with Mark here. Mr. Gomes does in fact answer e-mail, very quickly most of the time. ;) Plus he seems to be eager to help solve problems and listen to customer input. -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
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.
Adam Rothschild wrote:
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.
I put data in section 1. Nobody ever reads it. (Seriously). Section 1 is always retained. :) The second way to track is, put the domain name in the subject. Now, when you get the final back, the domain name is in the subject anyhow.. so if you just write something to parse it, you're okay. -- jamie rishaw (dal/efnet:gavroche) American Information Systems, Inc. rdm: "Religion is obsolete." gsr: "By what?" jgr: "Solaris." (1996) Tel:312.425.7140, FAX:312.425.7240
participants (11)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Al Reuben -
Ben Kirkpatrick -
Edward S. Marshall -
jamie＠dilbert.ais.net -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jim Browne -
John Golovich -
Karl Denninger -
Mark Kosters -
Steve Sobol