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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 13 February 2014 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDBE1A00A2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:35:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VqUh2jYnAC-q for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC131A0083 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.47.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1664822E1FA; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:34:55 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140211223250.68983.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:34:50 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B1C114F7-5FA4-49F7-880F-9E94FCB24BFA@mnot.net>
References: <20140211223250.68983.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:35:01 -0000

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/