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

[Farell Folly]

Agree with John. The consensus policy is not controversal at all regarding
the definition of optional.



Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 2 sept. 2017 17:10, "John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> a écrit :

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

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170903/48d9b39e/attachment-0001.html>