Dear colleagues, I’ve attached release candidate 2 (i.e., draft final 2) of the gTLD RDAP profile in Office Open XML format. This version is a redline vs release candidate 1 (last version shared here on 30-June). We plan to publish the final version by early next week. Leaving aside minor wording and format edits, the main changes are as follows: 1. Section III: added reference to the upcoming Consistent Labeling and Display policy. 2. Section 1.5.17: clarified that registrars only need to show the variant names they know about. 3. Section 3.1.1: clarified footnote regarding expected requirement for registrations under .com, .jobs, and .net. Regards, -- Francisco
Hello Francisco, On 22/07/2016 02:00, Francisco Arias wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I’ve attached release candidate 2 (i.e., draft final 2) of the gTLD RDAP profile in Office Open XML format. This version is a redline vs release candidate 1 (last version shared here on 30-June). We plan to publish the final version by early next week.
Leaving aside minor wording and format edits, the main changes are as follows: 3. Section 3.1.1: clarified footnote regarding expected requirement for registrations under .com, .jobs, and .net.
I've got a question regarding this section, as it is currently published at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en: It says: "3.1.1. For all gTLDs, with the exception of .com, .jobs and .net, Registrars are REQUIRED to provide an RDAP service for domain names for which the Registrar is the Sponsoring Registrar, and the registration data stored in the Registry is "thin". Registrars MAY offer an RDAP service for domain names registered under any gTLD." So, if a registrar *exclusively* sponsors domains in gTLDs with "thick" registries (and, possibly, also offers .com, .jobs and .net domains), does this effectively mean that there is *no* requirement to operate a registrar RDAP server at all? Correct me if I'm wrong or if this is not the intended interpretation, yet it would actually make a lot of sense to lift the RDDS operation requirements for registrars in this fashion, given that they have little to add to the information already available from a thick registry's RDDS systems. Best regards, Thomas Corte -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Thomas Corte Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: Thomas.Corte@knipp.de Germany
Francisco, On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:00:58AM +0000, Francisco Arias wrote:
I???ve attached release candidate 2 (i.e., draft final 2) of the gTLD RDAP profile in Office Open XML format. This version is a redline vs release candidate 1 (last version shared here on 30-June). We plan to publish the final version by early next week.
since the final version 1.0 published at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en> differs from this release candidate, would it be possible to make 1.0 available in PDF, as well? Thanks, Peter
Hi Peter, We weren’t planning on publishing as PDF, but please find attached an “unofficial” PDF copy. I hope that helps. Regards, -- Francisco On 8/18/16, 9:45 AM, "Peter Koch" <peter@denic.de on behalf of pk@denic.de> wrote: Francisco, On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:00:58AM +0000, Francisco Arias wrote: > I???ve attached release candidate 2 (i.e., draft final 2) of the gTLD RDAP profile in Office Open XML format. This version is a redline vs release candidate 1 (last version shared here on 30-June). We plan to publish the final version by early next week. since the final version 1.0 published at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en> differs from this release candidate, would it be possible to make 1.0 available in PDF, as well? Thanks, Peter
participants (3)
-
Francisco Arias -
Peter Koch -
Thomas Corte