On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rube...@nic.br> wrote: > > > There are two angles to commercial feasibility: one is whether implementing > RDAP is feasible; RDAP is a generic protocol that can be tailored very > differently by each use case, and being from one of the ccTLDs that > implemented it (see https://rdap.registro.br/domain/nic.br) and from one of > NIR/RIRs that implemented it (see https://rdap.registro.br/ip/200.160.0.1), I > can tell you that they are very different.
And kudos to Nic.Br for doing this. > The other angle is whether implementing RDAP with the ICANN RDAP profile for > gTLDs is commercially feasible; the later is the one being challenged, not > the former. That's a fair observation. While I am not sure I reviewed the final ICANN profile, I have reviewed in-progress versions. I find it hard to believe the ICANN profile evolved to such a point that it makes an RDAP implementation commercially infeasible. This simply does not sound like a credible argument. If the RySG wishes to stand by this point, they should be much more forthcoming with their issues. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
