On 11 Aug 2020, at 15:27, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
Hello Marc,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, at 13:55, Marc Blanchet wrote:
On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it
would
be
nice to have an `SRV` record on `_rdap._tcp` or something to point
to
relevant
RDAP server, even if that does not allow to encode the path (but
maybe
a solution with .well-known/ and URI template could be found), it
allows at least
for nice failover and load balancing. It may be a problem for gTLDs
as
they have
restrictions in content of their zone.
well, this has been debated at length during the WEIRDS working group
work. I actually wrote a sentence about this in the RFC (in the
acknowledgements section). I’m not sure we want to restart the
debate
again…
I am not saying to restart the debate, especially not in the context
of a -bis document where protocol changes are not welcome.
But the RFCs are also 5 years old now and a lot of things change
quickly.
SVCB record in the DNS being one, while not there already.
Maybe the newly expected SCVB record could help...
A setup like that would allow for discoverability without
centralization of data,
which also removes IANA from the hot operational path when RDAP
clients do queries.
yes. this is the well-known caveat of this RFC and discussed and
debated
during WEIRDS. But experience up to now has not shown any issue, at
least to my knowledge. (and as a developer of the RDAP Browser mobile
app, I haven’t seen any issue fetching that registry. I do have
found
thousands of issues with the registry/registrars RDAP servers
however,
but that is another story).
I am not saying there is a current issue, fetching the JSON file from
IANA
webserver is clearly the smallest problem of any RDAP client.
But I also think there is currently no issue because basically the
world did
not shift to RDAP in any way yet. Which can easily be witnessed by the
amount
of broken servers so far - even if they are in a regulated space where
compliance
is an issue - and the total lack of ccTLDs in this space, at least in
operations.
Once there is a shift, then an issue can happen. Or not. We can indeed
not
try to prematurely optimize this.
And I would prefer a more decentralized way of discovery, because it
makes
more sense to me and because we do already have a decentralized
publicly available
database (the DNS) that could store RDAP related information per
registry.
we all wanted. But when one think of all the requirements and that we
make sure it works for both domains and IP addresses and AS numbers, the
best compromise solution was the IANA registries. None of the solutions
discussed were perfect. Yes, the IANA registry solution is not
distributed, but brings additional features (as agile as we want with a
JSON data model) that were not available in in-dns solutions, available,
ready to deploy, and also, one of the point that was pushed often was
the ability to fetch the data from a contained Javascript client in a
browser (where dns queries are not available).
Marc.
--
Patrick Mevzek
p...@dotandco.com
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
