--On Monday, February 15, 2021 14:44 +0000 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of >> John C Klensin Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 4:18 PM >> To: last-call@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: Advancing the >> Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) to Internet Standard >> >> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. >> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize >> the sender and know the content is safe. >> >> Hi. >> >> Questions about this that may bear some discussion (I'm not >> necessarily opposed, just think we should be clear)... >> >> The description in the supporting document indicates, as >> required, "widespread deployment and successful operational >> experience". While I understand that this has been >> implemented for many TLD and address registries and is in use >> by at least some of those registries and their customers, RFC >> 7480, which appears to be the core document of the >> collection, says: >> >> "RDAP is a successor protocol to the very old WHOIS protocol." >> in the abstract and proceeds to justify the specification of >> RDAP in the Introduction and elsewhere in the document. It >> is now nearly seven years since RFC 7480 was published; WHOIS >> is almost certainly more in use than ever (just because the >> Internet and number of TLDs has grown); and there are >> continuing efforts outside the IETF (e.g., in a >> seemingly-never-ending sequence of ICANN committees and >> working groups) to define a replacement for WHOIS and >> requirements for its use (at least for DNS purposes). >> >> So, three questions and a comment, with the understanding >> that they may partially apply to 7482bis and 7483bis as well: >> >> (1) While the requirements for Internet Standard do not >> require acceptance in the marketplace, I believe the IETF has >> sometimes interpreted evidence of the lack of such acceptance >> --which, at least in terms of replacing WHOIS for DMS use, >> appears clear >> here-- as an indication that we should not proceed with >> advancing the document. There may be reasons for advancing >> these specifications anyway, but would it then be useful to >> modify at least 7480 to make the relationships more clear? > > WHOIS and RDAP are completely independent, but Section 1 of > 7480 already describes some of the issues with WHOIS that > prompted the development of RDAP. What else is needed? A reading of 7480, especially in the context of the assertion of widespread deployment, could lead a reasonable person to expect that either WHOIS should be gone by now or that an explanation of why its use has not very significantly decreased. I can't make general statements with any confidence but I think we have often hesitated to move specifications to Internet Standard when their documentation says that they are intended to solve specific problems by replacing an earlier protocol when there is evidence that the marketplace does not agree because that earlier protocol is still in very active use.. perhaps in even wider use than the supposed replacement. So I am suggesting that a review and modification of the Abstract and Section 1 of 7480 to make clear that, while replacement/ superceding of WHOIS is progressing much more slowly than the document and the relevant WG anticipated in 2015, you are still optimistic that it will succeed (as earlier attempts to supercede WHOIS did not) and why... or that it is valuable enough to be an Internet Standard regardless of what happens to/with WHOIS. At least the former could be done by issuing a replacement document with adjustments to the relevant language (my preference I think), by a revised statement justifying the change in maturity level, or, I suppose (but do not favor because of the difficulties of finding such things) the implementation report. Whether that is "needed" or not depends on how the community feels about advancing a document to Internet standard that contains misleading language about its status. But I suggest that a clarification in some form would be desirable. >... >> (4) Finally, if the intention of moving these documents to >> Internet Standard at this time is, even partially, to act as >> a forcing function for getting rid of WHOIS, can that please >> be explicit rather than having people asking "why now" >> questions. >> > From my perspective, if it is just a matter of an outgoing >> > AD >> trying to clean up as many loose end as possible, I have no >> problem with that, but it would be good to be clear. > I'll leave the consensus questions for the IESG, but the > intention of the request to advance the RDAP RFCs to Standard > status is NOT to force deprecation of WHOIS. It's about > recognizing the implementation and deployment success of RDAP. > I imagine that there will need to be a "move WHOIS to Historic > status" request at some point in the future if it ever falls > into disuse. Good about recognizing the implementation and deployment success of RDAP. I am just suggesting that 7480 strongly implies an additional success criterion, one of superceding WHOIS. That has been less successful and I believe that the process of advancing these documents should recognize that particular fact on the ground. Again, I don't object to advancing the RDAP specifications; I just believe that the documentation should be accurate relative to the facts in evidence. best, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
