[gtld-tech] RDAP referral to registrar ?

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:34 PM
> To: John Levine; gtld-tech at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] RDAP referral to registrar ?
> 
> Unfortunately, HTTP redirections are not an option in the case of the
> gTLD
> space, because Registries are contractually required to provide an RDDS
> response.
> 
> From an operational perspective, I think that HTTP redirections are
> also
> not an option in the case of the domain industry, because the prevalent
> business model has two parties (i.e. Registries and Registrars) keeping
> certain portions of the data elements. For example, the Registry is the
> authoritative source of information for the domain statuses.

Gustavo, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly it would seem to
be a description of a use case in which redirection would actually be a
*good* operational practice. If a registry has some data elements and a
registrar has other data elements I believe it's possible to retrieve both
sets of elements if (for example) a registry receives a query and responds
with an HTTP 300 (Multiple Choices) status code:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.1

The RDAP response data from the registry can be carried in the body of the
redirecting response. The client follows the redirect (or URI reference(s)
found in the payload) to the registrar, sends the registrar a query, gets a
response, and both sets of data elements are retrieved.

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5924 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20160831/9da41e1e/smime.p7s>