[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29 August Meeting

[Stephanie Perrin]

+1.  Very confusing, particularly when translated.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-09-02 11:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:50:41PM -0700, jonathan matkowsky wrote:
>> It may be important to note from the April 27 advisory
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-27-en>
>> on that Consensus Policy that if data exists for a given optional field,
>>   the data MUST be shown. So I would suggest we define optional in that way.
> That is a pretty unnatural definition of "optional", and certainly not
> one that I expect will be understood by any implementer.  Such a
> redefinition away from the plain English meaning of the word is just
> asking for bugs.  "Optional" means "you don't have to fill it in", not
> "someone might not have collected this".
>
> A
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170902/6dad00e6/attachment.html>