Besides the concerns already mentioned by Michele, I add that using a TCP+TLS
based mechanism adds latency that is not the best friend of a sales pipeline.
When this topic last appeared I suggested considering DTLS transport and I
repeat that suggestion, adding that an availability protocol should be less
verbose than RDAP in order to not add network latency to the problem.
Rubens
> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Newton <a...@hxr.us> wrote:
>
> This topic keeps appearing over and over again, so Marcos and I
> decided to address it.
> As it turns out, there's not much needed to achieve this. This draft
> suggests two new query parameters and re-uses the current RDAP domain
> query. In other words, its a very small addition to RDAP.
>
> -andy
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Andrew Lee Newton and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability
> Revision: 00
> Title: Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service
> Document date: 2016-12-16
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 6
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-regext-rdap-domain-availability-00
>
>
> Abstract:
> This document describes a minimal profile of RDAP which can be used
> to check the availability of domain names available for registration.
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
