IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Fri, 16 December 2016 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rubensk@nic.br>
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 BD627129E7B for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:34:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
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 IQJ7hhCalvRs for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.nic.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) (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 7DD5C129E6E for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EEA1E9595; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:34:24 -0200 (BRST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.nic.br
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
Received: from mail.nic.br ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.nic.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0PgwsCOwBKLL; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:34:22 -0200 (BRST)
Received: from [192.168.1.81] (unknown [152.250.67.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rubensk@nic.br) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 083901E9545; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:34:22 -0200 (BRST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1481891662; bh=+W13VYB+iVdsIqQeQ4unk6QS354lc/DKiFqcv22tybU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=Wf5I500gliNYGaoLOdoSz5q6aXIKgSKieAubIt+TME/AbrGXjDfWOfmveYyE/zgvN FNRlBmdqnVqUWQuFZK3JBvbr/azv6h1lN3Hir1Smr/bkFhpTPppgZiBy1VfLhDoMUP 6e5OFLFUtm+r5EIXHdl4S8UrJ2ghAcWHInWee98c=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRcH6d23hT5aFYUve1LC+NhijpHwOvW+26G5wJw=gHoUuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:34:21 -0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2BE5CDC1-0073-4DAF-8041-C067C51A6323@nic.br>
References: <CAAQiQRcH6d23hT5aFYUve1LC+NhijpHwOvW+26G5wJw=gHoUuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br 083901E9545
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Kl4pCW93J6jNJkeSbBr01RyAcms>
Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [regext] Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:34:31 -0000



Besides the concerns already mentioned by Michele, I add that using a TCP+TLS based mechanism adds latency that is not the best friend of a sales pipeline. 
When this topic last appeared I suggested considering DTLS transport and I repeat that suggestion, adding that an availability protocol should be less verbose than RDAP in order to not add network latency to the problem. 

Rubens


> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:
> 
> This topic keeps appearing over and over again, so Marcos and I
> decided to address it.
> As it turns out, there's not much needed to achieve this. This draft
> suggests two new query parameters and re-uses the current RDAP domain
> query. In other words, its a very small addition to RDAP.
> 
> -andy
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Andrew Lee Newton and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name: draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability
> Revision: 00
> Title: Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service
> Document date: 2016-12-16
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 6
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>  This document describes a minimal profile of RDAP which can be used
>  to check the availability of domain names available for registration.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email