Would it be acceptable to change the text in the status-change document to clarify the situation with respect to Whois? It seems unfortunate to re-issue these two RFCs with no substantive changes, just to say "No, really, this is going to Internet Standard but Whois is still around and will be for a while, and that doesn't change." Barry On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:43 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
