Received: by 10.229.221.210 with SMTP id id18mr79106qcb.1.1276205250065;
        Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: nanog-@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.2.96 with SMTP id 32ls6855210qci.2.p; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 
	14:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.228.14 with SMTP id jc14mr81436qcb.18.1276205249403;
        Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.228.14 with SMTP id jc14mr81435qcb.18.1276205249370;
        Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org>
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [198.108.95.20])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id s22si281493qco.3.2010.06.10.14.27.29;
        Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org designates 198.108.95.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.108.95.20;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org designates 198.108.95.20 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=s0.nanog.org)
	by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>)
	id 1OMpHV-0006lb-OM; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:27:21 +0000
Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49])
	by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <wavetos...@googlemail.com>) id 1OMpGX-0005AN-EV
	for na...@nanog.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:26:21 +0000
Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so112631bwz.36
	for <na...@nanog.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.8.220 with SMTP id i28mr545487bki.204.1276205179597; Thu, 
	10 Jun 2010 14:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.120.78 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C113BC4.4000006@rollernet.us>
References: <20100604190504.GA61...@arin.net>
	<AANLkTilE1oOa-qYKW453tR3g6tZkN4js-WwlwPMzg...@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C113BC4.4000...@rollernet.us>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:26:19 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimM-a6H19DobyS1BMy1xhUl7-vmogcwWDlp7...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming Improvements to ARIN's Directory Service
From: Michael Dillon <wavetos...@googlemail.com>
To: Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: na...@nanog.org
X-BeenThere: na...@nanog.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,
	<mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog>
List-Post: <mailto:na...@nanog.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,
	<mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog--garchive-42879=googlegroups....@nanog.org

> Apparently we're supposed to be going all Web 2.0 now.

Web 2.0 can handle bulk transfers of data just fine.

I wonder if this is somehow related to privacy and data protection laws.

Just recently, RIPE announced that they were going to block bulk
transfers as a result of data protection laws, presumably because some
law has just changed. Obviously ARIN is under a different legal regime
than RIPE, however data protection has recently been a hot button
issue in the USA and it is possible that something similar will
happen. Given the importance of case law in the USA, as opposed to
legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of legal
review going on.

But again, as far as technology goes, HTTP is a superior file transfer
protocol to FTP, so the move to Web 2.0 RESTful transactions over HTTP
does not give any technical reason to stop bulk transfers. In fact, it
may just be an oversight so you should really ask them Clearly, if
nobody bothers to ask about bulk transfers, then nobody uses them and
nobody cares, so shutting them down is the right thing to do.

--Michael Dillon