As I said, I have no problem doing this BRIEFLY. But I will point out
that the ongoing PDP has the explicit charter to (and I quote verbatim,
emphasis mine) "establish gTLD registration data requirements
to determine if and why a next generation RDS is
needed".
I believe that we have general agreement from our chartering
organizations that we should not overlap with this PDP and in fact, our
recommendations go to the Board which does not under the Bylaws have the
authority to overrule the GNSO PDP.
Alan
At 06/07/2017 02:11 PM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
Dear Alan,
I totally agree with you that WHOIS almost does not fit for our current
purpose, but I also think that we can (and may be must) say that id does
not fit and has to be replaced.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
> wrote:
- I am less sure than Carlton that we MUST discuss this. I have no
problem with discussing whether the current WHOIS protocol is fit for
purpose, but it better be a pretty short discussion! If anyone
has a good argument why it IS fit for purpose, it should be shared pretty
quickly.
- The inability of a 7-bit protocol to handle today's IDN world, and
the inability to handle any level of authorization/authentication/gating
(which is generally understood to be necessary to allow critical
information to be collected but not universally displayed in support of
privacy legislation) makes the answer pretty clear. And as the charter
Carlton points to indicates, this has been clear for quite some
time.
- This is a REVIEW team. I believe it is well beyond our scope to
debate whether the current protocol can be modified to meet new needs, to
specify or design a replacement or to review possible replacements. And I
have little interest in debating whether any new protocol should be
called WHOIS (pretending it is the same), WHOIS-Mark-2, RDAP, WEIRDS,
WIERDS or Betelgeuse.
- Alan
- At 05/07/2017 10:08 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
- Dear All:
- I believe this review will have to answer the question as to whether
the current WHOIS protocol is fit to purpose in a evolved DNS environment
in one or other job stream. Some may recall that the RDAP is being
proposed as a fit and proper replacement.
- You may wish for background to examine the IETF charters for Web
Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) from whence came
RDAP.
-
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charters
- Best,
- -Carlton
- ==============================
- Carlton A Samuels
- Mobile: 876-818-1799
- Strategy, Planning,
Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
- =============================
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Disposition: inline
- X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
-
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:B4FAKC1/EM3XOvHOPyoJ57PmCR+VxY4KD2MBdt6vWtlFgLD4tOOlcsV3foNFR93KAoIM9yzc2f7ovNf8Z27tswcz7fr1TllQNyArpqDRUCTG3fAIGxT2DaVNoDvfJnqPlCyckJle2pLGGdCKNOvr+w==
- X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
-
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
- _______________________________________________
- RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
- RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
- _______________________________________________
- RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
- RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
--
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky