[gtld-tech] Draft RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars
Andrew Newton
andy at hxr.us
Thu Jan 7 22:21:04 UTC 2016
First, is it right of me to assume that commenting here is sufficient
to be considered providing feedback for this:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en ?
I agree with the general aim and direction of this proposal. Comments in-line:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan at dyn.com> wrote:
>
> I understand the difficulty of specifying a profile where the possible
> future policy options are not known, but I believe that RDAP was
> designed with the goal of being able to deliver selectively any field
> at all depending on the identity of the querying party. Therefore, I
> think the profile could specify at least three roles: public1,
> authenticated-full, authenticated-test.
>
I would call these authorization profiles, not authentication profiles.
> RDAP services MUST provide a form of authentication service as
> described in RFC 7481. RDAP services MAY use any of the federated
> authentication models described in RFC 7481, section 3.2.1.
>
> RDAP services MUST provide differentiated access based on
> authorization, as described in RFC 7481, section 3.3. RDAP
> services MUST provide a minimum of three different authorized
> levels of access, called public1, authenticated-full, and
> authenticated-test. In the sections that follow, members
> appropriate to the public1 and authenticated-full roles are marked
> as appropriate to either or both. Any member not explicitly
> marked is assumed to appropriate to the authenticated-full role
> only The authenticated-test role is for testing, and is used to
> demonstrate the ability to selectively disable response for some
> field at test time.
>
> RDAP services MAY NOT implement additional differentiated
> responses based on authorization except as contemplated by ICANN
> policy or under agreement with ICANN under the RSEP process.
>
> Then, each member mentioned should be marked as "public1",
> "authenticated-full", or both. I think only the following fields are
> part of the public1 list:
>
> for domain objects:
>
> objectClassName
> ldhName
> unicodeName
> variants (all of it)
> nameservers
> publicIDs, but only when it's used for a registrar
> secureDNS
> status
>
> for nameserver objects:
>
> objectClassName
> ldhName
> unicodeName
> ipAddresses
>
> Nothing else goes in public1. I've called this public1 to make it
> clear that it is but one possible interpretation of what "public
> access" could be in the future; I'm not wedded to the name.
I would include handle and any remarks the registrant intended for
public consumption.
>
> Now, the final bit is to make it clear that access that is
> _un_authenticated will use the authenticated-full role until ICANN
> policy changes.
>
> The point of all this is to have differentiated role functionality
> sitting there and ready to go as soon as the ICANN policy changes, and
> to include in the RDAP deployment policy now all the mechanisms
> necessary to implement whatever policy the PDP comes up with. By
> doing it this way, the current policy can be respected while yet
> laying the ground for the just-launched PDP to do something sane.
>
> I hope this is useful. Apologies again for the long time to send it.
> If you have further questions, obviously, please don't hesitate to
> poke me.
>
I don't know if this is the right place, but it would be nice if
something like draft-hollenbeck-weirds-rdap-openid could be
implemented as well, say 6 months after it is published as an RFC.
-andy
More information about the gtld-tech
mailing list