Thomas, Thanks for the thoughtful response. My comments are in-line:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Thomas Corte <thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > On 2017-04-03 20:35, Andrew Newton wrote: > >> There's nothing to do about Whois in this case, but RDAP can handle >> this easily (hence the extension). > > While the extension can be briefly specified, its implementation seems > excessively costly to me. To make the availability check work as > described, the RDAP server would have to be equipped with access to the > same (potentially complex) rule/policy engine that governs the principal > availability of domains in the SRS. Such an engine is usually not just > defined by a static configuration, but by a dynamic system involving > database content (such as reserved names list), launch phase setups etc. > I appreciate the complexity some domain registry models may incur, but all of the issues you mentioned above appear to be extra-protocol. In other words, those complications would be incurred regardless of EPP bits on the wire, RDAP bits on the wire, or some other protocol. I think it is also worth noting that not all TLDs are the same, and many do not suffer from these issues and hence should not be held back in this regard. > I'd assume that many registry systems are designed with Whois/RDAP > servers being standalone applications, with their own database, > connected to the main SRS via a lightweight feed mechanism transporting > information about existing objects. Implementing the availability check > in such a setup would require that feed not only to carry repository > objects, but also all data making up the SRS's rule/policy engine. > > That's a lot of effort to add a functionality that (at least in my point > of view) is out of scope of RDAP. Not all registries are architected the same way. There are at least 3 ccTLDs that I am aware of that do have HTTP REST services for domain availability. I see no reason why they should be forbidden from seeking a standardized mechanism, even if gTLDs have more complicated matters. Additionally, all of the solutions about UDP, EPP, etc... do not have the ability to be embedded in a web browser. Such an example is what you can find with https://registro.br . At the top of their page is an embedded domain check driven by HTTP REST. These are JSON endpoints such as https://registro.br/ajax/avail/xyz223.com.br and https://registro.br/ajax/avail/uol.com.br Standardizing this mechanism would help web page developers, such as those at resellers and associates, re-use common libraries and design patterns. In the end, more domains are sold so one would think those in the domain selling business would be happy about that. Finally, I'd like to point out that the same mechanism can be used by registrars with their resellers where they can offer the RDAP end-point and tunnel that into EPP to the registry. While that won't be as efficient as TLDs offering the service directly, as stated previously such setups may be unavoidable. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
