Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

[Rubens Kuhl <[e-mail]>]

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:27, Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Marc,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, at 13:55, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
>>> 
>>> PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it would
>>> be
>>> nice to have an `SRV` record on `_rdap._tcp` or something to point to
>>> relevant
>>> RDAP server, even if that does not allow to encode the path (but maybe
>>> a solution with .well-known/ and URI template could be found), it
>>> allows at least
>>> for nice failover and load balancing. It may be a problem for gTLDs as
>>> they have
>>> restrictions in content of their zone.
>> 
>> well, this has been debated at length during the WEIRDS working group
>> work. I actually wrote a sentence about this in the RFC (in the
>> acknowledgements section). I’m not sure we want to restart the debate
>> again…
> 
> I am not saying to restart the debate, especially not in the context of a -bis document where protocol changes are not welcome.
> 
> But the RFCs are also 5 years old now and a lot of things change quickly.
> SVCB record in the DNS being one, while not there already.
> 
>>> Maybe the newly expected SCVB record could help...
>>> 
>>> A setup like that would allow for discoverability without
>>> centralization of data,
>>> which also removes IANA from the hot operational path when RDAP
>>> clients do queries.
>> 
>> yes. this is the well-known caveat of this RFC and discussed and debated
>> during WEIRDS. But experience up to now has not shown any issue, at
>> least to my knowledge. (and as a developer of the RDAP Browser mobile
>> app, I haven’t seen any issue fetching that registry. I do have found
>> thousands of issues with the registry/registrars RDAP servers however,
>> but that is another story).
> 
> I am not saying there is a current issue, fetching the JSON file from IANA
> webserver is clearly the smallest problem of any RDAP client.
> 
> But I also think there is currently no issue because basically the world did
> not shift to RDAP in any way yet. Which can easily be witnessed by the amount
> of broken servers so far - even if they are in a regulated space where compliance
> is an issue - and the total lack of ccTLDs in this space, at least in operations.

Of the 822 https:// URLs in https://data.iana.org/rdap/dns.json <https://data.iana.org/rdap/dns.json> , and 0 http:// URLs, there are some for ccTLDs:
.ar
.br
.ca
.cr
.cz
.id
.is
.no
.tz


So, I believe we could remove http:// as a transport option, and that there is no total lack of ccTLDs. Surely there could be more.


Rubens