[gtld-tech] RDAP requirement for registrars sponsoring "thick" gTLDs only?

[Roger D Carney]

Good Afternoon,



Thomas, your interpretation is correct, that is the intent of the wording in section 3.1.1: Registrars are not required to have RDAP server services if all their gTLD registrations are thick registrations (Registrars are still required to provide WHOIS lookups for com/net/jobs via port-43 and this implementation will be redefined/honed by the Thick WHOIS IRT).





Thanks

Roger





-----Original Message-----
From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Corte
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 8:16 AM
To: gtld-tech at icann.org
Subject: [gtld-tech] RDAP requirement for registrars sponsoring "thick" gTLDs only?



Hello Francisco,



On 22/07/2016 02:00, Francisco Arias wrote:



> Dear colleagues,

>

> I’ve attached release candidate 2 (i.e., draft final 2) of the gTLD RDAP profile in Office Open XML format. This version is a redline vs release candidate 1 (last version shared here on 30-June). We plan to publish the final version by early next week.

>

> Leaving aside minor wording and format edits, the main changes are as follows:

> 3. Section 3.1.1: clarified footnote regarding expected requirement for registrations under .com, .jobs, and .net.



I've got a question regarding this section, as it is currently published at

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en:



It says:



"3.1.1. For all gTLDs, with the exception of .com, .jobs and .net, Registrars are REQUIRED to provide an RDAP service for domain names for which the Registrar is the Sponsoring Registrar, and the registration data stored in the Registry is "thin". Registrars MAY offer an RDAP service for domain names registered under any gTLD."



So, if a registrar *exclusively* sponsors domains in gTLDs with "thick"

registries (and, possibly, also offers .com, .jobs and .net domains), does this effectively mean that there is *no* requirement to operate a registrar RDAP server at all?



Correct me if I'm wrong or if this is not the intended interpretation, yet it would actually make a lot of sense to lift the RDDS operation requirements for registrars in this fashion, given that they have little to add to the information already available from a thick registry's RDDS systems.



Best regards,



Thomas Corte



--

TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®

Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte

Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222

Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200

D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: Thomas.Corte at knipp.de<mailto:Thomas.Corte at knipp.de>

Germany
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20160808/861826fb/attachment-0001.html>