Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?

Speaking as a Web-centric sort of person and an Apps Area reviewer, if any
further specs come forward that try to do a URI-space land-grab, I can
promise you loud and sustained objections.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> It's this attitude that I (and apparently other Web folks here) find
> disturbing -- to paraphrase, "we're building a new protocol, so we don't
> have to worry about what we do to the Web."
>
> Because WEIRDS has opted into using HTTP and URIs, it's opted into the
> Web, and that means it shouldn't harm other uses of the Web.
>
> Squatting on URIs is bad practice on the Web. Requiring implementations to
> use certain URI patterns is bad practice on the Web. And so on.
>
> While there may be no existing RDAP servers, the Web is pre-existing (and
> doing pretty well). If WEIRDS doesn't want to honour its architectural
> constraints, that's fine -- RDAP can use or define something else.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2014, at 9:32 am, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
> >> domain: example.com
> >>   rel: domainlookup    href-template:
> http://example.com/lookup/{domain}
> >>
> >> I'm very curious to hear what other APPS folks think about this
> >
> > RDAP is a new design.  There are no existing RDAP servers other than a
> > few prototypes run by people on the WEIRDS list.  There's nothing to
> > be backward compatible with.
> >
> > RDAP is intended as a replacement for WHOIS, to answer the same
> > questions that people ask now using WHOIS, e.g. information about
> > domain names, IP addresses, ASNs, and a few other things.  The
> > questions that people ask with WHOIS haven't changed materially in 20
> > years, and I see no reason to expect them to change in the future.
> >
> > Small RDAP servers will likely adapt the RDAP prototype being funded
> > by ICANN.  Large RDAP servers will be written by a handful of large
> > registries, all of which are represented on the WEIRDS list and can
> > speak for themselves, but I can't remember any of them showing notable
> > enthusiasm for templates.
> >
> > In this particular application, I really can't see any benefit to
> > templates other than the ability to be gratuitously different just to
> > prove that you can.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>