> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:27, Patrick Mevzek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Marc, > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, at 13:55, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: >>> >>> PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it would >>> be >>> nice to have an `SRV` record on `_rdap._tcp` or something to point to >>> relevant >>> RDAP server, even if that does not allow to encode the path (but maybe >>> a solution with .well-known/ and URI template could be found), it >>> allows at least >>> for nice failover and load balancing. It may be a problem for gTLDs as >>> they have >>> restrictions in content of their zone. >> >> well, this has been debated at length during the WEIRDS working group >> work. I actually wrote a sentence about this in the RFC (in the >> acknowledgements section). I’m not sure we want to restart the debate >> again… > > I am not saying to restart the debate, especially not in the context of a > -bis document where protocol changes are not welcome. > > But the RFCs are also 5 years old now and a lot of things change quickly. > SVCB record in the DNS being one, while not there already. > >>> Maybe the newly expected SCVB record could help... >>> >>> A setup like that would allow for discoverability without >>> centralization of data, >>> which also removes IANA from the hot operational path when RDAP >>> clients do queries. >> >> yes. this is the well-known caveat of this RFC and discussed and debated >> during WEIRDS. But experience up to now has not shown any issue, at >> least to my knowledge. (and as a developer of the RDAP Browser mobile >> app, I haven’t seen any issue fetching that registry. I do have found >> thousands of issues with the registry/registrars RDAP servers however, >> but that is another story). > > I am not saying there is a current issue, fetching the JSON file from IANA > webserver is clearly the smallest problem of any RDAP client. > > But I also think there is currently no issue because basically the world did > not shift to RDAP in any way yet. Which can easily be witnessed by the amount > of broken servers so far - even if they are in a regulated space where > compliance > is an issue - and the total lack of ccTLDs in this space, at least in > operations.
Of the 822 https:// URLs in https://data.iana.org/rdap/dns.json <https://data.iana.org/rdap/dns.json> , and 0 http:// URLs, there are some for ccTLDs: ..ar ..br ..ca ..cr ..cz ..id ..is ..no ..tz So, I believe we could remove http:// as a transport option, and that there is no total lack of ccTLDs. Surely there could be more. Rubens
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
