Hi *,
In my opinion, in order for RDAP to be successful, those use cases will
have to be taken into account. Regular users do use WHOIS to query for
availability, or if a name is unavailable they want to know why, I know
this first hand from feedback we received when we launched Uniregistry.
for instance:
```
$ whois -h whois.nic.link thisnameisavailable.link
The queried object does not exist: Domain thisnameisavailable.link is
available for registration.
Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-12-07T23:41:41.710Z <<<
[…]
```
```
$ whois -h whois.nic.link iana.link
The queried object does not exist: See below for more information
registry reserved
Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-12-07T23:42:27.510Z <<<
[…]
```
```
$ whois -h whois.nic.link iana.foobarbaz
The queried object does not exist: See below for more information
tld not supported by this registry interface
Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-12-07T23:42:43.702Z <<<
[…]
```
```
$ whois -h whois.nic.link obispo.link
Domain Name: obispo.link
Domain ID: DO_d278b6e470d7fc1d3135e5261b65dc34-UR
WHOIS Server: whois.uniregistry.net
Referral URL: http://whois.uniregistry.net
Updated Date: 2016-03-23T23:08:14.025Z
Creation Date: 2014-04-15T16:14:20.513Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-04-15T16:14:20.513Z
[…]
```
Those use cases need to be preserved in the new system, we must be able
to signal different responses based on the object situation, and as a
registry, people expect this to be authoritative and accurate.
regards,
On 7 Dec 2016, at 7:30, Gould, James wrote:
It sounds like you’re attempting to morph RDDS into the SRS. RDDS
is a lookup service and the SRS is an OLTP system. A lookup service
either has the data or it doesn’t. Extra business logic associated
with availability (variant blocking, relationship blocking, reserved
domains, etc.) should be left to the appropriate channel which is the
SRS and not RDDS.
--
JG
James F. Gould
Distinguished Engineer
Verisign
[email protected]
On 12/7/16, 10:12 AM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Sullivan"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:56:11AM -0500, John R Levine wrote:
> I was thinking that you're the RDAP server for .FOO and someone
who's
> screwed up his bootstrap asks about BLAH.BAR, with whom you have
no
> connection.
I will just point out that this is the _exact_ reason some of us
thought the bootstrap mechanism should have been SRV records in
the
DNS, because it would have neatly solved that exact problem.
> I suppose we could pick another code for "it's not assigned but
if you pay
> me money it could be" but I really don't think it's a good idea
to read
> anything beyond "I don't know" into a normal 404 response.
I agree with this in principle, but given the way humans actually
use
the RDDS, there's going to need to be _some_ way to communicate
this
difference. In particular, for policy reasons it's important to
understand "this domain isn't available because someone has it",
"this
domain isn't available because someone has something that prevents
it
being registered", and "this domain isn't available to anyone for
policy reasons." Consider people doing compliance checks, who
maybe
shouldn't have access to the SRS directly and who should only have
access to the RDDS. They still need to be able to see these
distinctions.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
—
Francisco Obispo
Uniregistry Inc.
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
