[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] irregularities within RDAP

Tue Sep 27 00:33:04 UTC 2016

[Apologies for not replying inline, the new version of Outlook won’t let me.]

The date for shutting down Whois port 43 has not been discussed or defined with the community. Therefore, stating 1 February 2017 we would be in the transition period where both WHOIS and RDAP would coexist.

The requirement for having a valid DNSSEC chain of trust is not coming from the RDAP RFCs; this is a requirement from the gTLD RDAP profile that was discussed and agreed with the community.

The requirement to preserve case is a “SHOULD” not a “MUST”, hence following your example, the contracted party would be free to return “example.com”.

The gTLD RDAP profile requires registrant, technical and administrative, and optionally allows for a billing contact. The gTLD profile addresses how to support more roles (e.g., contacts), for example, see section 1.3.6 of the profile.

Regarding variants, section 1.5.17 of the profile addresses this: In the case of Registrars, the variants member MUST reflect the latest known set of variant domain names and relation types.

Regards,

--
Francisco

On 9/26/16, 5:05 AM, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of gtheo at xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>> wrote:

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><mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:16 AM
To: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com><mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org> <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org><mailto: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/20160927/3a72e163/attachment-0001.html>