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

[Greg Aaron]

Scott, the term "consensus policies" has a specific and formal meaning at
ICANN.  Were you using that meaning in your post?

All best,
--Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Gustavo Lozano; Patrik Wallström
Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org; eppext at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [eppext] RDAP server of the registry

* PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 10/7/2015 at 10:41:25 AM

> -----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?

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.

Scott

* Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck at verisign.com>
* Issuer: Symantec Corporation - Unverified