> -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 12:30 PM > To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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. > > > --On Friday, February 19, 2021 10:38 -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. > > > > Does this work for you? If not, please adjust and > > counter-propose: > > > > OLD > > This status change, therefore, requests a change in status for RFCs > > 7480 and 7481 from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. > > > > NEW > > This status change, therefore, requests a change in status for RFCs > > 7480 and 7481 from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. > > > > While it is a stated goal in RFC 7480 that "RDAP is a successor > > protocol to the very old WHOIS protocol," WHOIS remains widely > > deployed and in active use, and is likely to be so for some time. > > This action addresses only the maturity of RDAP itself, and makes no > > statement nor implication about WHOIS. > > > > END > > Barry, > > I think that is possibly ok and thanks for suggesting the text. > I think it would be better if you (or Scott) could add a > sentence or two about _where_ RDAP is deployed and in use. For > most of the users of the Internet who have heard of either Whois or RDAP, > "Whois" = "DNS lookup". For them, the claim that RDAP is widely deployed is > questionable. I'd write the sentences, but I don't have the data. > > For example, if it is in wide use in the address registries, let's say that. If it is > the actual back end for the web-based interfaces for a significant number of > TLD registries, let's say that (even if you have to weight "number of TLD > registries by > number of registrants to make that true)? If, when I use the > Whois protocol to access information in those registry databases, I'm really > using a front-end shim over RDAP, say that too. > > I suspect all of those things may be true but, again, I don't > have the data. Scott and Andy certainly should (in a more > ideal world, the information would even be in the implementation report0, > so this should be matter or a sentence or three, not a research project. [SAH] A proposal for a few more sentences: RDAP is fully deployed and operational at all five Regional Address Registries. RDAP implementation and operation is a contractual requirement for all ICANN-accredited domain name registries and 2,370 registrars. The IANA "Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space" describes 820 unique RDAP base URLs that are are associated with several thousand generic top-level and country code domain name RDAP servers that are operated by domain name registries. Scott -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
