<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">+1. Very confusing,
particularly when translated.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-09-02 11:11, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170902151136.27mbzv4fzhfe4e4n@mx4.yitter.info">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:50:41PM -0700, jonathan matkowsky wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It may be important to note from the April 27 advisory
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-27-en"><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-27-en></a>
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>