Re: [eppext] RDAP adoption?

Mario Loffredo <> Tue, 10 November 2015 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524251B3BD5; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:52:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.731
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A2LYqFTv7bBY; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6DEE1B3BD6; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E143B80D20; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:52:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iEtC8GvnJ7Yy; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:52:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14FAEB80BFB; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:52:41 +0100 (CET)
References: <>
From: Mario Loffredo <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:52:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Andrew Newton <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] RDAP adoption?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:52:59 -0000

Il 10/11/2015 04:43, Dave Crocker ha scritto:
> (Andy Newton asked me to post this question to these lists...)
> Hi.
> I'm trying to discover the current field maturity of RDAP.
>    *  How much operational deployment of servers supporting it is there?
>    *  How much client deployment in software?
>    *  But ultimately how much client/server use of the protocol is
>       there, so far?
>    *  Any sense of the adoption/use trends?
>    *  Any sense of what is delaying more and better adoption/use?
>    *  Any sense of what might improve things?
> Thanks.
> d/
Dear Dave,

I speak on behalf  of .it and it seems to me that there are some big 
problems we have to face in order to implement a RDAP server.
The first three things coming in my mind about RDAP responses are the 

- domain status
   Due to Italian regulation, we have introduced some statuses in 
addition to EPP standard and RGP extension statuses.
   At the moment, the only way to represent this statuses according to 
the RDAP profile is to add an unrecognized member together with a status 
reported in RFC7483

- Registrar role publicIDs member
   The RDAP profile states that the entity with the registrar role MUST 
contain a publicIDs member to identify IANA Registrar ID from the IANA's 
Registrar ID registry.
   In .it, we have a lot of medium/small registrars registering only .it 
domains so none of them appear in the IANA Registrar ID registry.
   Furthermore, there are some domains managed by the registry itself 
( for example) or by italian public entities registrars 
(government, regions, and so on)

- Registrant/admin/tech role required fields
According to .it regulation,  each contact cannot give the consent to 
publish the personal data on WHOIS.
Street,City and Country are part of the personal data so they might not 
appear in a RDAP response

Maybe these problems are common to other ccTLDs.
In my humble opinion, we need a discussion about the adoption of RDAP 
from ccTLDs in order to have, at the end, a RDAP profile for ccTLDs .