jothan at jothan.com
Thu Mar 7 00:17:32 UTC 2019
I would say yes and no
Yes it is designed into the protocol and in a perfect world that would mean
yes ir is covered.
Sometimes the world is not perfect.
We should realize that there is a fast cycle on things being put in place
I agree with Andrew, but would add that I don't think someone would be
trying to deliberately break UA if an RDAP implimentation was not solving
field data element encoding suddenly.
Notwithstanding what Andrew said about it being potentially included, I
think assuming RDAP will fix storage of Unicode for UA may not be correct
unless explicitly stated by a given implementation.
Given the expedited pace of implementation that industry is faced with, for
many it is unfortunately a resourcing triage... which means teams may focus
upon core operations that are required for compliance and will likely apply
the most immediate attention them and to other things later.
All hypithetical, but an example might be that If systems that are being
updated for RDAP had UA deficiencies (western encoded data field in
database might be an example), these may not be being adapted immediately
to meet the implementation date.
It might even prove to place "compliance by deadline" in jeopardy to modify
database field structures. I could see a team, under those circumstances,
deferring such a change.
Testing and verification of UA may also not be at the front of the list of
I think exposing some of these details helps inform the dialog so that we
are not letting people mentally tick the box next to "mission accomplished"
on UA just because RDAP came along.
Especially when things are happening in expedited timelines.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 06:49 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Yes. Part of the design criteria for the protocol. If someone can't do
> that with RDAP they have gone out of their way to break it.
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
> On March 7, 2019 06:46:19 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
>> Hi all.
>> Reading this CircleId article
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_registrars_given_a_six_month_deadline_to_implement_registration_data/ one
>> question comes to my mind.
>> Is the implementation of RDAP UA-compliant? I mean, will it be possible
>> to store data in different scripts?
>> Thanks for enlighten me on this topic.
On Mar 7, 2019 06:49, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Yes. Part of the design criteria for the protocol. If someone can't do that
with RDAP they have gone out of their way to break it.
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On March 7, 2019 06:46:19 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
> Hi all.
> Reading this CircleId article
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_registrars_given_a_six_month_deadline_to_implement_registration_data/ one
> question comes to my mind.
> Is the implementation of RDAP UA-compliant? I mean, will it be possible to
> store data in different scripts?
> Thanks for enlighten me on this topic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the UA-discuss