On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rube...@nic.br> wrote:
> There are two angles to commercial feasibility: one is whether implementing
> RDAP is feasible; RDAP is a generic protocol that can be tailored very
> differently by each use case, and being from one of the ccTLDs that
> implemented it (see https://rdap.registro.br/domain/nic.br) and from one of
> NIR/RIRs that implemented it (see https://rdap.registro.br/ip/126.96.36.199), I
> can tell you that they are very different.
And kudos to Nic.Br for doing this.
> The other angle is whether implementing RDAP with the ICANN RDAP profile for
> gTLDs is commercially feasible; the later is the one being challenged, not
> the former.
That's a fair observation. While I am not sure I reviewed the final
ICANN profile, I have reviewed in-progress versions. I find it hard to
believe the ICANN profile evolved to such a point that it makes an
RDAP implementation commercially infeasible. This simply does not
sound like a credible argument. If the RySG wishes to stand by this
point, they should be much more forthcoming with their issues.
regext mailing list