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

Gustavo Lozano gustavo.lozano at icann.org
Wed Oct 7 16:38:05 UTC 2015

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
>> 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
>development processes that are either under way or being considered? The
>I was part of made a number of recommendations that depend on RDAP. Where
>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
>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,
>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.
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.
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).




-------------- 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>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list