Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
In-Reply-To: <56422EE7.5040007@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:01:35 -0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62A1F9F1-08B9-45E2-8443-5748EFF3FF07@nic.br>
References: <564167D3.7050805@dcrocker.net> <56422EE7.5040007@iit.cnr.it>
To: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br B7CB1149EFF
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/4weA0vLIJU96MRmsDuR3s5z-sZY>
Cc: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, eppext@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net,
 weirds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [eppext] RDAP adoption?
Precedence: list


>=20
> 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 =
following:
>=20
> - 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

It seems gTLDs are facing the same issue, and the same seems to be the =
same: an I-D defining those values.=20

>=20
> - 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 =
(nic.it for example) or by italian public entities registrars =
(government, regions, and so on)

The gTLD RDAP Profile only applies to gTLDs. ccTLDs don't have follow =
any of ICANN's specs in this regard; is there any IETF document =
precluding .it from using some kind of internal ID ?=20

> - 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
>=20

Empty data might seem to solve it as well, but I wonder whether this =
requirement also came from gTLD profile or from a technical standard ?=20=



> 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 .

ccTLDs are known for liking their independence, so it's really up to you =
to make the .it RDAP profile... but there are some commonalities in the =
EEE (European Economic Area) that might suggest an European ccTLD RDAP =
profile that could include VAT, Privacy Laws etc. Perhaps CENTR could be =
a venue to that development ?=20





Rubens