[gtld-tech] [eppext] RDAP server of the registry

[Gustavo Lozano]

On 10/7/15, 10:41, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck at verisign.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gustavo Lozano [mailto:gustavo.lozano at icann.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:00 AM
>> To: Patrik Wallström; Hollenbeck, Scott
>> Cc: Kaveh Ranjbar; gtld-tech at icann.org; eppext at ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [eppext] [gtld-tech] RDAP server of the registry
>
>[snip]
>
>> gTLD Registries want to have full requirements and an implementation
>> plan
>> for all RDSS (i.e. whois, rdap) related activities, therefore the
>> schedule
>> to have the gTLD profile ready looks tight.
>
>Gustavo, what's driving that schedule? How does it fit with the RDDS
>policy
>development processes that are either under way or being considered? The
>EWG
>I was part of made a number of recommendations that depend on RDAP. Where
>do
>those recommendations come into play?

The schedule for implementing the thick Whois policy that is
under way.


>
>This gTLD registry operator wants to be sure that we do this once, we do
>it
>so that we don't have to undo things in the future, and we make
>implementation decisions based on consensus policies. If that takes time,
>so
>be it.

I think that we share the same objective. The gTLD profile was sent to the
RySG, RrSG, ICANN gtld-tech mailing list, and this group in order to
obtain feedback. The RDAP profile will be published once that the
ICANN-contracted parties agree that it¹s ready. This is the same the
process that we used with the Whois clarification advisory.

The schedule that Francisco described in his email (i.e.
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2015-September/000507.html)
appears to work from our perspective, but based on the feedback, it may
not work.

A great percentage of the provisions in the gTLD profile are related to
ICANN policy, and some are just a translation of the requirements in the
Registry Agreement and the Whois advisory (I.e.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-2
7-en) to RDAP. There are provisions that could be part of a BCP, but I
don't think that there is an issue. We can work in the gTLD profile and
BCP(s) in parallel. Once the BCP(s) are ready, the gTLD profile is
modified or a new version is released.

I think that is really important to consider all users of RDAP (I.e.
ccTLDs, gTLDs, RIRs) if the WG decides to work on BCP(s).

Regards,

Gustavo

>
>Scott

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: default.xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 3222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20151007/20234f27/default-0001.xml>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: default[1].xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 3222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20151007/20234f27/default1-0001.xml>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5045 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20151007/20234f27/smime-0001.p7s>