[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:09:16PM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> >This doesn't actually follow.  One could provide a port 43-like
> >interface to RDAP. 
> 
> One “could” but it’s not a given that this will happen

No, of course.  I was just trying to separate the question of breaking
the port 43 protocol (which is not required) and changing the data
available via that protocol (which might be one of the things we need
to specify).  In other words, the question isn't breaking a protocol,
but rather whether we break applications relying on the data
_currently_ available via whois.  So we need to know whether current
whois-using people are dependent on more than the minimal data in the
whois, and whether that anaonymous dependency is reasonable.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com