Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-brown-whoami-00.txt

Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A950126B6D for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:30:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OE1XSzb2Xn5g for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (mail-9.bfn.uk.centralnic.net [212.18.250.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2AB312E88F for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:30:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from GavinsMacBookPro.local (unknown [95.146.232.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D331E0E52; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:30:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: Patrick Mevzek <mevzek@uniregistry.com>, regext@ietf.org
References: <151377852712.2592.10566747004490166706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <59015cb0-3fc3-4674-5e6d-db4d495a8b66@centralnic.com> <0082f074-a989-eb08-8c73-773c5f39095d@uniregistry.com>
From: Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>
Organization: CentralNic
Message-ID: <dd49ccb8-065a-9f2a-99d4-a68a9966bbe0@centralnic.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:30:39 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0082f074-a989-eb08-8c73-773c5f39095d@uniregistry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W7IeMHDXDywOeGpOyH41BUZgY9Mh74ZPx"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/I0gpyB_Ne7W_lFwrfy-bo7At-J8>
Subject: Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-brown-whoami-00.txt
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:30:54 -0000

Hi Patrick, apologies for the delay in responding.

On 20/12/2017 22:25, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/12/2017 12:08, Gavin Brown wrote:
>> Having thought about this topic for a little while, it occurred to me
>> that there might be some benefit in a "straw man" proposal for how
>> centralised databases of registration data might be avoided. So I wrote
>> this Internet-Draft which describes a simple decentralised alternative
>> to Whois/RDAP directories.
>>
>> Obviously it is far from a perfect solution, but I have yet to think of
>> any criticism of it that does not equally to Whois/RDAP as they
>> currently exist. So I have published my draft for feedback.
> 
> What do you do for domain names that are registered but not technically
> used, meaning no delegation in DNS?
> In that case you can not publish URI records in their zone (except if
> there is a way to have the registry publish it instead in its zone, like
> it does for glues), nor having a webserver reply for the website under
> this domain.

The registry could publish the URI record, but I think this is not the
best option.

WHOAMI is not a complete replacement for WHOIS; because it cannot
provide the technical metadata about the domain (ie creation date,
expiry date, sponsoring registrar, etc). So a registry which allows its
registrants to deploy WHOAMI will still need a "thin" WHOIS or RDAP service.

In this situation, a client which wants to look up a suspended domain
can use the nameservers (and glue if any) provided by the parent
registry's WHOIS/RDAP service and query them directly for the URI (or
the address records of the web server when falling back to the
well-known URL).

G.

-- 
Gavin Brown
Chief Technology Officer
CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
https://www.centralnic.com/

CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
EC2R 6AR.