[cabf_validation] Proposal for Adding RDAP

[Wayne Thayer]

Change the second MUST to a SHOULD, or leave this language out altogether -
either way we'll need to define a plan to sunset WHOIS once RDAP is further
along.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Well, that’s why I phrased it the way I did.  It’s essentially a NOP
> today, but it will become less of one over time.  We could even change the
> second MUST to a SHOULD for now if people are concerned about rushing into
> things.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
> CAs SHOULD prefer RDAP when available.
>
> CAs MUST use authenticated HTTPS and/or RDAP methods when supported by the
> registry / registrar.
>
>
>
> But I think that might not have majority support.  It does have the
> advantage that it slowly moves the industry towards modern, authenticated
> methods as registrars and registries start supporting them.  Which should
> only take a century or two.
>
>
>
> I agree that it's unlikely to have support - even from browsers - in part
> as that RDAP is still in its pilot phase. Consider that ICANN's first RDAP
> profile resulted in a request for ICANN to *not* use that profile from the
> registries, and the pilot will end in July 2018. As exciting as RDAP is,
> let's not rush to something that is still (intentionally) going through
> careful rollout and experimentation.
>
>
>
> +1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180501/766bd554/attachment-0001.html>