--On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 15:55 -0500 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would it be acceptable to change the text in the status-change > document to clarify the situation with respect to Whois? Yes. In my original note, I wrote, as one option "...could be done by ... [or] by a revised statement justifying the change in maturity level". That would certainly be consistent with the above. > 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." I have to admit to being Old School enough to believe that the IETF (and its predecessors) were better off when any change to the text or assertions of a specification, other than obvious editorial errors, was addressed with a new RFC rather than assorted comments, statements, notices, errata, and notes scattered around the web. Perhaps because of that, I read the requirements for advancing a document unchanged as favoring a new document in this case (and perhaps interpret "substantive" differently as a further result). But I (and others who believe that way) lost that battle long ago, so elaborating on this in the status-change document is probably a reasonable approach. thanks, john > 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
