whois [-h server] identifier lends itself well to url form, in a similar way to the mailto: syntax. whois:identifier whois:identifier@server It would be useful to automate this with guessing servers if necessary, e.g whois:ntk.net could parse output, see that server is whois.opensrs.net (or know where to check for top-level domains like .net) and return the human-readable useful results of: whois:ntk.net@whois.opensrs.net (I'd write the url form up as an internet-draft, but really this would need to go get stuck in some W3C committee, and I'm not a paid-up member of the W3C. The analogy with mailto: is good - why extend a browser to read mail, either?)

> I'd write the url form up as an internet-draft, but really this would need to > go get stuck in some W3C committee w3c? why? none of the other network protocols has anything to do with w3c. such things are usually defined by the IETF (http://www.rfc-editor.org/). that just as an aside...

To be honest, this doesn't sound like something that will be used by many users. My recommendation is to write a browser extension, which can be hosted (for example) on mozdev.org. If the extension proves to be popular or useful in some significant application, then it would be a candidate for inclusion in the default Mozilla builds. For now, I think WONTFIX is appropriate. Feel free to disagree, but be sure to espouse on the overwhelming benefits of this feature to users and/or the Mozilla platform, which I'm not seeing at the moment ;-) Thanks for your interest in Mozilla, and feel free to ask questions about extension writing (via the newsgroups or direct email).

Christian, whois network functionality already exists, so the IETF doesn't need to define that. Given RFC2806 (tel:) and RFC2368 (mailto:), an IETF working group might seem appropriate for a draft describing this, though the IETF's seemed more vigorous recently about passing over control of specs to the W3C, so I doubt it's still the IETF's domain. And which working group would the draft be submitted to? (All RFCs say 'Network Working Group' for historical reasons.)

V/wontfix. I have doubts we (current contributors) will ever go back an implement these protocols. Unless someone wants this, this is wontfix. It is worth noting that most of these services are not truly scalable or secure.