> Em 7 de dez de 2016, à(s) 20:13:000, Andrew Sullivan > <[email protected]> escreveu: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:16:01PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> >> Unintuitive as it is, that was exactly the output of the ICANN EWG on RDDS. > > Perhaps fortunately, the EWG's output doesn't determine ICANN policy > on this. Because the centralised RDS that they were proposing was, > IMO, very close to the worst scaling plan I've heard on the Internet > in a very long time.
Whether EWG centralized RDS will go live is a discussion for a different forum, but the fact that such a proposal got consensus show that assuming RDDS and SRS will always be closely tied is false. It's how it is today, it might keep being that way after the current RDS WG ends its work, but the chance (or risk) of decoupling is there. > >> We can do that using a local WHOIS port-43 attender > > Really? Are we still talking about keeping that miserable obsolete > nightmare around even longer? > > Port 43 must die. Not as an organization to organization protocol, just to support old code that is out there, like order systems that do WHOIS lookup to determine availability. What I'm saying is that we can make RDDS not workable as an availability checking mechanism without breaking those applications by providing workarounds. Rubens _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
