[gtld-tech] [weirds] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content

luvingnc at aol.com luvingnc at aol.com
Sat Feb 6 17:22:48 UTC 2016

Really?  You would elevate these purported benefits to the same level of importance as authenticated (or "differentiated") access?  My take on these purported benefits is:

1. Internationalization?  Ok, this is a stretch, but I'll give it to you.  But it's not like internationalized characters are disallowed by whois.  
See, for example: whois -h whois.nic.xn--cg4bki nic.xn--cg4bki  There are others.

2. Standardized query/response/errrors?  Again, a stretch.  301, 302, 404, 429... big deal.  Anyway, AWIP and CNRA have tried to do the first two.

3. Ahem... extensibility?  Really?  Anyone wishing to support anything beyond the profile must undergo the dreaded RSEP, effectively muting this benefit. 

4. HTTPS?  That's more important than authenticated/differentiated access?  Who is clamoring for this? Nobody!

5. Standardized bootstrapping?  New gTLDs must all support whois.nic.<tld>

6. Standardized redirection for thin?  There are three thin registries: com, net, tv.  All provide the reference to registrar with the same key "whois server:"

7. Flexibility to support various policies?  Okay, maybe someone at ICANN cares a lot about this, but few in the community care, especially given #3 above.  

What the community does care about is authenticated/differentiated access.  As several have already written, RDAP without this is simply a repackaging of existing capabilities.  *NONE* of the above are significant or impactful changes to existing capabilities that benefit any entity, individual or corporate. 

I get the impression of ICANN internal pressure to force-feed the community RDAP to meet a date, rather than a desire to put forth a noteworthy advancement in RDDS.  Rather than dictate compliance with a profile that *seems* a product of ICANN's doing, rather than a grass-roots initiative, why doesn't ICANN invest effort in coordinating a solution to the obvious need for authenticated/differentiated access?  And, if ICANN wishes to dictate something useful, federated authentication amongst registries would be a good start.  Better yet, ICANN could be the authenticator - THAT would be useful.

Ann Hammond

-----Original Message-----

From: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org>
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck at verisign.com>; gtld-tech <gtld-tech at icann.org>
Sent: Fri, Feb 5, 2016 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [weirds] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content

On 2/3/16, 9:40 AM, "gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org on behalf of shollenbeck at verisign.com> wrote:

>As I've said before, I want to deploy RDAP in a way that addresses the issues we have with WHOIS. Functional equivalence provides no significant benefit.

Just to be clear, differentiated access is not the only benefit you get from RDAP. I can think of at least the below benefits:

1.	Internationalization support for registration data
2.	Standardized query, response, and error messages
3.	Standardized extensibility
4.	Supports private access to data (i.e., over HTTPS)
5.	Bootstrapping mechanism to easily find the authoritative server for a given query
6.	Standardized redirection/reference mechanism (e.g., from a thin registry to a registrar)
7.	Flexibility to support various policies



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20160206/a15fa422/attachment.html>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list