Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com> Tue, 11 August 2020 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pm@dotandco.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 C61953A0ACF for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dotandco.com header.b=T28d5lFz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=OGlS2FFk
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 toppvacPJ0xb for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA84B3A0770 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43ADA4E for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:28:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap22 ([10.202.2.72]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:28:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dotandco.com; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=AGycj BzJAmVQKAggwa+7I/1pgPx8WqIbd7N/aPki1tM=; b=T28d5lFzy4YAJZh7A/spE fnaFEiNjYjVKMMamt26VTuKOqyQZVgGRHtgVYlQWq7I2KamvpjwVonxsHQM3mGZC CY5+vvx4Qou32sxO/01y/bc+ANr+0fljkxHeK2nehhfRXMGZuMsamlWk/jTcoTGO sdRVC4r6f/Ao6pUAh1gp4cQyd0b4EsYiOdYjaOFMeXEROttvwcCs6XfvCXq3kivx RN1MiH+UX/CQUKRn7S8E3RylQtxYCuH2ppAZnI520oQl92C6Edr7cBhjH1iJYsIX /UusDLdMVivnZ3TCugkCudioGmbssB1BPrwvu8P2zHCl7osFunBY8ZWF/GPWpXT+ A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=AGycjBzJAmVQKAggwa+7I/1pgPx8WqIbd7N/aPki1 tM=; b=OGlS2FFkwxZiv/PX5OnCAmC0x0B7157sqE3r0MuRCrWYBSdg3MXJiKL5j MWIgogFwhyJn1LEQgUpi343GvgI0VH+FDfoBQd2U+PpwAxVynJqlRbYUDRVcPrB+ SnzKECY6KmLJN8QTW1hYTZijPr+u1wV1Ljh7JkRspfKE2mLIvaVQ3GyWUlnTRw1g mrpVKRfwmgXyVSWQPV4DHD4JJtjUXW6Cp7WKyyAkWaS947jCxRbfIL6iCVpL3oHx cdrmlSCGDNcXeezkNggkqqQqm7z71LVXj5CvgScY0paTLjqMwMYjvt+zpHfUKnaV PGZPTKRnQImoPvjucrSVfXuWdnuRA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:VfEyX57m34WRzVFoaefquKXUMiEQY8hUv_h3jIoXQKYu7q-hIntjTr5VqLc>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrledtgddufeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfrrghtrhhitghkucfovghviigvkhdfuceophhmsegu ohhtrghnuggtohdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffegleevhfelkedugfeiie ejffduudfhgefhleejvdetfedugedufefhffdtfeevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhmseguohhtrghnuggtohdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:VfEyX25BJQ_em0TcqGgMcH6ghY1qzOWp9OeBqerZz3Gn3P0bIiU9_w> <xmx:VfEyXwcIbphM30VIboxvUJA3GLzvswqbYGgbUzGF7PkwonJ3cmhKCg> <xmx:VfEyXyIhZ3970W6y0U1sMoKcdB9C0chGC8GERco3p9aKjS6Xl-AoEg> <xmx:VfEyXwZ8KUYtuh3pOl9SW3eMNdXd59MNQtEifvEG_Sl3BGB1hSM07A>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1CBE36680078; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:28:21 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-143-g3d58b38-fm-20200806.002-g3d58b387
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <72a9bb42-3eb9-43fe-862f-32c1faadab75@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <61B05C2B-C1BD-469C-A77F-E68377446C30@viagenie.ca>
References: <801B9484-0F94-4CB4-ABBC-AAC495361E80@centralnic.com> <00ae8cca-fc44-4279-b6f7-3f57d86474b1@www.fastmail.com> <61B05C2B-C1BD-469C-A77F-E68377446C30@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:27:59 -0500
From: "Patrick Mevzek" <pm@dotandco.com>
To: regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ril3mFJrnR1toNmc-ZLnCTRtogg>
Subject: Re: [regext] rfc7484bis
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:28:25 -0000

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.

Once there is a shift, then an issue can happen. Or not. We can indeed not
try to prematurely optimize this.

And I would prefer a more decentralized way of discovery, because it makes
more sense to me and because we do already have a decentralized publicly available
database (the DNS) that could store RDAP related information per registry.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  pm@dotandco.com