Re: [eppext] [gtld-tech] RDAP server of the registry

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <> Tue, 06 October 2015 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D2B1B29E7 for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aIC5bnL140MY for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D981B29DE for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgez77 with SMTP id z77so12546663qge.1 for <>; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=jiKkpU4T1uP3cjGYkstWL6N0LP9n+z/YEUZsI+b8sOE=; b=Nb0MQ62smWGp2Txpv+I4gT05v3+IbnNuOUZDeckbHCzwdlZzw5goXXRyuBf6+7aeuB jVaheY3rH9StYZm83wb245Djyd1bH6pDo5W506lQObpdyHMzX0VdEK0OL8EA/+cxR3U/ E2M7Q8RF6tC8rCGTucYVHV1qovFIylI08LNeyeiBrn3D/nk/W8f4VTu5taFQeOwTfREG lOtBt9oZVj+1+wfqnG5FEeAZNKvgLSoNlaNYCdafg65dAkcnt/CRVRtQzJYs0LegYAzE 9fR0etNjAExPNZ0QpQ57lj83/zExgasdhKx99yWI8JAbjVJ95lxdiMHNeX3RIgSNBCSj FhNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk+eQkOFXh99rrjCLWAOykXhYJI7plie3HJ9TjAKBb05w76QMb5vvUsszVefIgwZ7GALacs5fA3j2fkK02qOSuQr8s4cQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i80mr33418115qkh.5.1444157634628; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id t22sm381603qkt.5.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (brn1wnexcas02 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t96Irr61004915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:53:54 -0400
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:53:53 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
To: Kaveh Ranjbar <>
Thread-Topic: [gtld-tech] RDAP server of the registry
Thread-Index: AQHQ/3rntucFay3MHE6AZbmw28rIeZ5dIheggAGh9YCAAAlGYA==
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:53:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A0AB58BBRN1WNEXMBX02vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Gustavo Lozano <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] [gtld-tech] RDAP server of the registry
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, 06 Oct 2015 18:53:58 -0000

It’s more than just policy, Kaveh – it’s implementation requirements that I’m suggesting should be developed with community consensus. Internet-Drafts can be (and have been) written to document implementations of IETF standards. Here’s one example that became an Informational RFC:

An Informational-intended document that describes protocol option settings could be developed for RDAP in a very similar way. What’s in the document now is incomplete, but it would be a very good start, and as I said – I’m willing to help write.


From: Kaveh Ranjbar []
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:05 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: Gustavo Lozano;;
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] RDAP server of the registry

Hi Scott,

With all due respect I disagree. The intent of the document is to outline ICANN’s “policy” towards it’s Registries and Registrars. It basically points out the RFC’s they have to comply with and outlines a few issues and provisions, mostly ICANN specific requirements (for example details of address information) which IMHO is out of scope of an I-D.

On the other hand, there are few issues pointed out in the document (specially the ones from Appendix A) which are good candidates for IETF discussions and possibly updating (or writing new) RFCs.

All the best,

On 05 Oct 2015, at 13:11, Hollenbeck, Scott <<>> wrote:

Gustavo, I’d very much prefer to see the profile described in an I-D and developed using the IETF’s consensus process. I’m also willing to back up that preference with writing help as needed. I’ll have specific comments on the profile itself “soon”.


From: EppExt [] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:34 AM
Subject: [eppext] RDAP server of the registry


The first version of the ICANN gTLD profile was published days ago, (see:, this document describes basic parameters and objects to be implemented by ICANN-contracted parties.

The gTLD Whois output contains a field with the Whois server of the Registrar. In the case of thin registries, this allows the end user to get the registration data from the registrar, and in the case of thick registries, this allows the end user to query for extra Whois fields (e.g. registrar expiration date).

The gTLD profile support the same functionality with the following mechanism:

The RDAP domain lookup response MUST contain a links object as defined in RFC7483 section 4.2. The links object MUST contain the elements rel:related and href pointing to the Registrar's RDAP URL for the queried domain object.

Questions for this group:

* What do you think about this proposal? If you have different ideas on how to provide this functionality, please share it with the group.
* What is your opinion about documenting this mechanism in an I-D?

Gustavo Lozano