At 11:28 AM 6/5/2004, Alex Bligh wrote:

>--On 05 June 2004 13:13 +0000 wrote:
>>And Geoff did indicate that Nominet has received legal
>> advice that confidentiality is required.

>I think (as per the referenced in Geoff's message to which you refer) it's
>specific confidentiality that's required on that front (i.e. of the
>database rather than of its components), rather than "everything must be
>held confidential".
>But away from the legal point, there's the "what do we want this protocol
>to do" question. Again, from Nominet's view, whilst I can see the three
>things I posted might be desirable features to some, they aren't something
>Nominet's looking for.
>The point of my message was to indicate what advice we had not received,
>and what functionality we were not seeking :-) - given "confidentiality"
>can mean anything to anyone.

I raised the issue of defining "confidentiality" since it's not clear at all
what that means. For example: alex registers a domain
with Nominet (and I'm not really picking on Alex or Nominet here).
What needs to be kept confidential? Is it:

a) the domain name itself, in which case I would argue that
by registering the domain and making it available through the parent
domain, the name has been published and is available for everyone
to use. Otherwise why register it in the DNS?

b) He doesn't want people to know about the domain since you can
find out all sorts of information via whois, in which case the problem
lies with whois and not DNS.

c) Doesn't want someone else walking the and getting a complete
list of all domains. This could affect performance of the DNS servers
due to the advent of kiddiescripts being created to do this.

d) something else.

Again I'm not picking on Alex or Nominet. I just want to understand
exactly what they want to protect.


to unsubscribe send a message to with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.