<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you, Andrew, for saying better and more authoritatively what I was thinking as I read that email. (In other words, +1)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg (S.)</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:22:46AM +0100, Rob Golding wrote:<br>
> Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.example-registrar.tld<br>
><br>
> ^ This field only applies to com/net/jobs due to the "thin"<br>
> registry/registar setup, and will be "gone" shortly as part of the migration<br>
> to "thick", so should not be included in the MPDS<br>
<br>
I don't know that that's the case. But it doesn't matter, because it<br>
_will_ be gone if the whois protocol dies, as it should.<br>
<br>
I argued previously that what is _really_ needed is a generic class of<br>
fields related to referrals for RDS protocol operation. Among them<br>
would be this field, but only where it is needed. I am struggling to<br>
get proposed language exactly right, obviously, since this idea seems<br>
not to have been taken up generally.<br>
<br>
> Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2010-10-08T00:44:59Z<br>
><br>
> ^ This field only applies to com/net/jobs due to the "thin"<br>
> registry/registar setup, and will be "gone" shortly as part of the migration<br>
> to "thick", so should not be included in the MPDS<br>
<br>
I strongly disagree here. Registrars and registries do not always<br>
agree about what "expired" means as far as the registrant is<br>
concerned, because of auto-renew and the way that registrars rely on<br>
the grace period.<br>
<br>
> Name Server: NS01.EXAMPLE-REGISTRAR.TLD10<br>
> Name Server: NS02.EXAMPLE-REGISTRAR.TLD<br>
><br>
> ^ This information provides no _functional_ purpose<br>
<br>
That claim has been roundly shown false. Once again: it is useful to<br>
know what the registry database thinks the (child) nameservers are as<br>
compared to what the (parent) nameservers think the (child)<br>
nameservers are, because sometimes there's a functional failure in<br>
registry processes. This is the way to detect that.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>