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

[Andrew Sullivan]

This is another example of why I think we're confusing ourselves by talking about "the rds", which involves both collection and publication of data.  We keep failing to attend to our official current task, which is only collection, so rules about how one will display it later are supposed to be irrelevant just now.  But we seem unable to keep that distinction in mind, and I think it's because most of us already know that the collection side of the rds is whatever the registry does.  

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 12:10, John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> I think the point is optional to collect, mandatory to display if present. 
> 
> So there are two sets of requirements.
> 
> 1- what information domain registrants give
> 2- what information RDS displays
> 
> --
> John Bambenek
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:11, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>