Re: [weirds] [eppext] RDAP adoption?

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Tue, 10 November 2015 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rubensk@nic.br>
X-Original-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: weirds@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713481B3BFE; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:01:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.838
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 x7dt7k8SA5Ol; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:01:50 -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 F09E01B3C02; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5D4149EC9; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:01:48 -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 euL_hGwHh7f2; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:01:41 -0200 (BRST)
Received: from rubens.in.registro.br (unknown [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:3a::195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7CB1149EFF; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:01:35 -0200 (BRST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1447178495; bh=s1uVLN/1WSU+/UyerzEj3/JvGa9zCzFl8A0NXfVf2+g=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=fdHOnO1JoDo9qLVlh4E9E0pZHJR/PZgaIgo2RvWMMORlJlWlcg5RP+G44uG5phAtI /hlP5YMvzHzowYcpX4AgpNKYCxLpVZYO3Gk2BCmy1c+YjVXCN8HYopn7AkOSaoQ/qp vrXuigo0HfJKcQuHLYLB8wsVhZ3rtFPUMOnSwWeQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
In-Reply-To: <56422EE7.5040007@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:01:35 -0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62A1F9F1-08B9-45E2-8443-5748EFF3FF07@nic.br>
References: <564167D3.7050805@dcrocker.net> <56422EE7.5040007@iit.cnr.it>
To: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br B7CB1149EFF
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/weirds/-1tbHUVKevB0nVa7MWyhRDJGLSA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:08:57 -0800
Cc: eppext@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, weirds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [weirds] [eppext] RDAP adoption?
X-BeenThere: weirds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/weirds/>
List-Post: <mailto:weirds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds>, <mailto:weirds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:01:51 -0000

> 
> I speak on behalf  of .it and it seems to me that there are some big problems we have to face in order to implement a RDAP server.
> The first three things coming in my mind about RDAP responses are the following:
> 
> - domain status
>  Due to Italian regulation, we have introduced some statuses in addition to EPP standard and RGP extension statuses.
>  At the moment, the only way to represent this statuses according to the RDAP profile is to add an unrecognized member together with a status reported in RFC7483

It seems gTLDs are facing the same issue, and the same seems to be the same: an I-D defining those values. 

> 
> - Registrar role publicIDs member
>  The RDAP profile states that the entity with the registrar role MUST contain a publicIDs member to identify IANA Registrar ID from the IANA's Registrar ID registry.
>  In .it, we have a lot of medium/small registrars registering only .it domains so none of them appear in the IANA Registrar ID registry.
>  Furthermore, there are some domains managed by the registry itself (nic.it for example) or by italian public entities registrars (government, regions, and so on)

The gTLD RDAP Profile only applies to gTLDs. ccTLDs don't have follow any of ICANN's specs in this regard; is there any IETF document precluding .it from using some kind of internal ID ? 

> - Registrant/admin/tech role required fields
> According to .it regulation,  each contact cannot give the consent to publish the personal data on WHOIS.
> Street,City and Country are part of the personal data so they might not appear in a RDAP response
> 

Empty data might seem to solve it as well, but I wonder whether this requirement also came from gTLD profile or from a technical standard ? 


> Maybe these problems are common to other ccTLDs.
> In my humble opinion, we need a discussion about the adoption of RDAP from ccTLDs in order to have, at the end, a RDAP profile for ccTLDs .

ccTLDs are known for liking their independence, so it's really up to you to make the .it RDAP profile... but there are some commonalities in the EEE (European Economic Area) that might suggest an European ccTLD RDAP profile that could include VAT, Privacy Laws etc. Perhaps CENTR could be a venue to that development ? 





Rubens