[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] irregularities within RDAP
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Tue Sep 27 11:54:07 UTC 2016
Hi Francisco,
Thanks for the clarifications, very helpful.
Regarding this transition, I was not aware this was pending community
discussion, My guess outside of the ICANN bubble very few are aware.
It is now clear to me that the two should coexist.
But the RAA 2013 is less clear when it comes to this subject (the reason
I brought this up).
Registration Data Directory Services.
U/ntil ICANN requires a different protocol, Registrar will operate a
WHOIS service available via port 43 in accordance with RFC 3912, and a
web-based Directory Service providing free public query-based access to
at least the elements set forth in Section 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.8 of
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement in the format set forth in Section
1.4 of this Specification. ICANN reserves the right to specify
alternative formats and protocols, and upon such specification, the
Registrar will implement such alternative specification as soon as
reasonably practicable./
Now we can have several interpretations on how we could read this, but
one of the interpretations could be, implement RDAP and your requirement
for the port 43 service is no longer required, as it is replaced by RDAP.
In short, the RAA 2013 does not specify what to do.
The email that was sent out a few weeks ago about RDAP did not specify
what to do, besides implementing it.
As such you might have Registrars come up with their own interpretation.
But perhaps I am the only one who sees an issue here.
Talk to you folks on the call in a few.
Theo
On 27-9-2016 02:33, Francisco Arias wrote:
>
> [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/20160927/34b6b35d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
mailing list