[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Registrar Data vs RDS Data

Tue Aug 8 16:00:03 UTC 2017

I want to highlight one of the points Andrew is making about RDDS vs. RDS.  RDDS (Registration Data Directory Service) is the system that publishes the data.  Today that is done via Whois while RDAP is the replacement protocol developed by the IETF.  This is fairly narrowly defined and specific.  RDS (Registration Direction Services) as referenced in our charter is much broader in scope referring to the entire ecosystem, as Andrew notes encompassing the collection, control and dissemination of Registration data.

In our deliberations sometimes people say RDS, but what they mean is RDDS and sometimes they say RDDS but mean RDS.  Sometimes that distinction isn't so important, but sometimes it leads to confusion.  I think Andrew nicely highlights an area where coming to consensus was made difficult because of different interpretations of the meaning of the words being used.  This will happen, but in the case of RDDS and RDS it seems to happen often and some frustration could be avoided if we are clearer on when we mean the system and when we mean the entire ecosystem.

As a footnote the SSAC 051 report notes a similar problem (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-051-en.pdf) with the term "WHOIS" being overloaded.  That report defined 3 new terms:

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) - narrowly defined to mean just the Registration Data

Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP) - RDAP and WHOIS are examples of a Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol

Domain Name Registration Data Direction Service (DNRD-DS) - This is the service (or system) itself - This is probably where RDDS came from (being the shortened version of DNRDDS) but the first time I saw the shortened RDDS version used was in the new gTLD applicant guidebook.

-Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:43 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Registrar Data vs RDS Data

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:53:35PM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> On one of our recent calls there was some discussion around the difference between the data that a registrar would have versus which data could end up in RDS.
>

I think I was probably the one at fault for this, so let me try to explain in more detail what I was trying to ask.  I'm tempted to apologise for opening this rathole, but as a practical matter I did so because I'm a little worried about a possible equivocation in our charter interpretation.

The reason all of this got started was, I think we all agree, because of whois.  Many want to replace it, but some are reliant on parts of the current work flow and the existing policies.  But the whois is an RDDS -- registration data directory service (a term that was introduced by SSAC, I think).  I don't know exactly how RDDS got changed into RDS, but I suspect there was a change in meaning when it happened.  RDDS is very clearly only about the publication of data:
how, and who can access is, and under what conditions.

Our charter asks about "the fundamental requirements for gTLD registration data", which means that we are not constrained to data publication.  This is in part I think because it is important to constrain collection of data partly due to the problem of unplanned disclosure.  So we have ended up discussing whether data might be collected as well.  Traditionally, we have separated that data collection question from the RDDS -- it was instead often discussed in the context of the SRS (shared registration system).  The SRS is the thing usually operated by the "registry", and the systems feeding the SRS are normally operated by the "registrars".

I _think_ the RDS we are working on is supposed to be the set of common data that is to be collected, or is optionally collected, and is accessible to at least one party through a publicly-specified query mechanism against the registration database(s); this mechanism might restrict the data that a given party is able to retrieve as a result of such a query.

The RDDS as I envision it is a distributed database.  Different sources of data can be controlled by different authorities, very much the way the DNS is designed.  Whois has worked this way for many years, though it was not originally designed so.  That whois doesn't work too well under this distributed model is mostly a consequence of it not having been designed for that purpose in the first place.
Nevertheless, modern whois clients sometimes (even often) fetch data from more than one place and present all of that to the user.  I can't tell whether this is also true of the RDS, and I don't find that people are always being clear about this.  I _think_ it is, and certainly any candidate protocols we have are designed such that it could be a distributed system.

On last week's call, people started talking about data that registrars would be required to collect, but that "wouldn't be part of the RDS".
But given that we are talking about data that the RDS specification would require, and that would be available to at least one party under some conditions, the only question is whether it is data that might be available via the publicly-specified mechanism under authenticated and authorised conditions.  So,

> As I mentioned on the call registrars have access to a lot of data that is beyond anything that is required for whois or its replacements.

while I understand perfectly well that this is the case, I think it's irrelevant.  Certainly things that would never be available outside the registrar are not included in the RDS, because they're never to be available by the aforementioned query mechanism.  But we seemed last week to be talking about something that the registrar is _required_ to collect but that is normally not available, but that might be available under the right circumstances.  I'm trying to understand how that is data that is not "in the RDS".  It requires some sort of modification of the meaning of "the RDS" as I have conceived it, but I can't come up with one that makes any sense to me.

The example last week was an alternative contact method that was "not in the RDS" but that someone could get under the right circumstances.
It seems obvious that, if there is no way to get that contact method, then there is no point at all in requiring the collection.  Therefore, the contact method _is_ in the RDS with a lot of restrictions on who can get it, I think.

I hope this makes plainer what I was trying to ask about.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg