-----Original Message----- From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 3:53 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [weirds] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content

On 2/3/16, 9:40 AM, "gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:

...

As I've said before, I want to deploy RDAP in a way that addresses the issues we have with WHOIS. Functional equivalence provides no significant benefit.

Just to be clear, differentiated access is not the only benefit you get from RDAP. I can think of at least the below benefits:

1. Internationalization support for registration data 2. Standardized query, response, and error messages 3. Standardized extensibility 4. Supports private access to data (i.e., over HTTPS) 5. Bootstrapping mechanism to easily find the authoritative server for a given query 6. Standardized redirection/reference mechanism (e.g., from a thin registry to a registrar) 7. Flexibility to support various policies

All true, and not all to be realized "soon" given the multiple paths we're on. The current profile proposal says nothing about support for internationalized registration data. The bootstrapping mechanism doesn't work *at all* for entity queries. Thin-to-thick redirection won't be needed if/when thin registries become thick registries. Two of these (i18n and thick/thin) are still very much bound to ongoing policy work. As things are currently proposed we would get very little beyond benefits associated with HTTP and JSON-encoding. Scott