[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] irregularities within RDAP
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Mon Sep 26 12:05:51 UTC 2016
Thanks Dennis,
First of all, if we look what has been published is that RDAP should be
implemented Feb 1, 2017 (draft 1 April). What I am missing, is a
transition period. If everyone implements it, and shuts down the WHOIS
servers we have a problem.
The resource records related to the RDAP service MUST be signed with
DNSSEC, and the DNSSEC chain of trust from the root trust anchor to the
name of the RDAP server MUST be valid at all times.
-Looks sensible, but I cannot find this in the RFC's mentioned, is the
above language a result of this?
In the case (i.e. uppercase and lowercase) of the data returned in RDAP
responses SHOULD preserve the case received via EPP.
-TG- This needs to be specified perhaps for contact fields for example.
As it, reads now you register ExAmPlE.com but you cannot return,
example.com. Least that is how I read it.
The domain object in the RDAP response MUST contain entities with the
following roles. Exactly one entity per role MUST be present in the
response.
-TG-Most gTLDs support more roles. Is there no support or does the
policy ends this support for more roles?
-RDAP does not support a country code for a contact, rather RDAP
requires a full country name.
-TG- This, is a mapping nightmare, not everyone supports the official
mapping, not sure how much work this is and will vary from Registrar to
Registrar.
If the queried domain name is allocated, the following applies: If
allocated variant domain names exist for the queried domain name, or if
the domain name is an allocated variant domain name, the domain object
in the RDAP response MUST contain a variants member [RFC7483].
-TG- We do not store this, and it seems to contradict the following in
the profile :"The purpose of this profile is to specify the RDAP
requirements that are in line with the current Whois service requirements."
Best regards,
Theo
On 24-9-2016 20:10, Dennis Chang wrote:
>
> Hi Theo,
>
> This is the first item on the agenda for the IRT meeting on Tuesday.
>
> Please keep the questions coming.
>
> If you could provide specifics on “irregularities within RDAP” and
> “clarification on a few issues” in advance, that will help us to
> prepare better for our team discussion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dennis Chang
>
> *From: *theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl>
> *Date: *Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:16 AM
> *To: *"Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com>, Dennis Chang
> <dennis.chang at icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org"
> <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposed Path Forward | Thick
> Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration
>
> Dennis,
>
> This looks like the path forward, and I am supportive of the proposed
> path forward as a Registrar.
>
> Perhaps I am jumping the gun here, but how would this dialogue with
> the community take place?
> Furthermore, how do we address irregularities within RDAP? Or get
> clarification on a few issues that I assume have not been discussed yet?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo
>
> On 21-9-2016 19:58, Anderson, Marc wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> Thank you for the excellent explanation and details. On behalf of
> Verisign and as a member of the RySG I would like to express my
> support for the revised CL&D policy and the path forward you have
> laid out.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Marc Anderson
>
> *From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Dennis Chang
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 1:42 PM
> *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposed Path Forward | Thick
> Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration
>
> Dear IRT members,
>
> As you know, on 7 February 2014, the ICANN Board adopted GNSO
> consensus policy recommendations regarding the provision of
> “Thick” Whois by all gTLD registries.
>
> In consultation with the consensus policy Implementation Review
> Team (IRT), the implementation team identified two expected
> outcomes in the policy development process (PDP) recommendations:
>
> * The consistent labeling and display of WHOIS output for all gTLDs
> * The transition from Thin to Thick WHOIS for .COM, .NET and .JOBS
>
> The first outcome was published as a consensus policy, the
> Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling
> and Display Policy[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_rdds-2Dlabeling-2Dpolicy-2D2016-2D07-2D26-2Den&d=DQMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=pkBrE3ogDYFgpWAATzOOdmRD93_Pz1PCrWtnSZN7Lg4&s=7mN42JF9avjgJDjFj4ZrjgmhMajcH8mgr2MOTxILGts&e=>
> (CL&D Policy), on 26 July 2016.
>
> In August 2016, the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) submitted a
> Request for Reconsideration[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_reconsideration-2D16-2D10-2Drysg-2Drequest-2D2016-2D08-2D11-2Den&d=DQMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=pkBrE3ogDYFgpWAATzOOdmRD93_Pz1PCrWtnSZN7Lg4&s=f3NsGYRUd-AUuYr1fLckI0cksGxfF7ZbHmR82CBKyPg&e=>
> (RfR) regarding the CL&D Policy. The RfR objects to the inclusion
> of RDAP as part of the Consensus Policy as RDAP was not
> contemplated or referenced in the policy recommendations.
>
> To resolve this matter, ICANN proposes the following path forward
> for the IRT:
>
> 1. ICANN to issue a revised CL&D Policy to all registry operators,
> removing provision 12. For your reference, provision 12 states:
> “The implementation of an RDAP service in accordance with the
> "RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and
> Registrars[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_rdap-2Dgtld-2Dprofile&d=DQMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=pkBrE3ogDYFgpWAATzOOdmRD93_Pz1PCrWtnSZN7Lg4&s=BEeCQrYK7JMscoggE25Woxu-0TdskrtCGjX6Sj6NVTo&e=>"
> is required for all gTLD registries in order to achieve consistent
> labeling and display.” Additionally, I have attached the proposed
> revised CL&D Policy.
>
> 2. Issue a revised notification to registry operators regarding
> implementation of the CL&D Policy, clearly indicating what has
> changed in the revised CL&D Policy.
>
> 3. Set the revised CL&D Policy effective date to allow for full
> 6-month implementation from the date of the revised notice.
>
> 4. Update the published CL&D Policy on the ICANN website, noting a
> change has been made. Note: The revised CL&D Policy would _not_ be
> subject to another Public Comment process.
>
> 5. Rescind the notification sent to registrars to implement RDAP.
>
> ICANN intends to issue notices for registries and registrars to
> implement RDAP after further dialogue with the community.
>
> Please let us know if you have comments or concerns by responding
> to this list. Unless we hear otherwise, we intend to move forward
> with the plan outlined above on 4 October 2016.
>
> —
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Dennis S. Chang
>
> GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
>
> +1 213 293 7889
>
> Skype: dennisSchang
>
> www.icann.org[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=pkBrE3ogDYFgpWAATzOOdmRD93_Pz1PCrWtnSZN7Lg4&s=mPjnVw7nkrHEOvqo_pVRsOgcJA9nCei1CJcZWX0dYqs&e=>
> "One World, One Internet"
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
>
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
> <mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt[mm.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dimpl-2Dthickwhois-2Drt&d=DQMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=pkBrE3ogDYFgpWAATzOOdmRD93_Pz1PCrWtnSZN7Lg4&s=4kbspuXnx6QwVFowMkdtINMgbQE8VDBSKEyWHfD8wDo&e=>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160926/cf4d5749/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
mailing list