[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Against opposition to certain fields (was Re: 2013 RAA Data Elements)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:22:46AM +0100, Rob Golding wrote:
> Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.example-registrar.tld
> 
> ^ This field only applies to com/net/jobs due to the "thin"
> registry/registar setup, and will be "gone" shortly as part of the migration
> to "thick", so should not be included in the MPDS

I don't know that that's the case.  But it doesn't matter, because it
_will_ be gone if the whois protocol dies, as it should.

I argued previously that what is _really_ needed is a generic class of
fields related to referrals for RDS protocol operation.  Among them
would be this field, but only where it is needed.  I am struggling to
get proposed language exactly right, obviously, since this idea seems
not to have been taken up generally.

> Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2010-10-08T00:44:59Z
> 
> ^ This field only applies to com/net/jobs due to the "thin"
> registry/registar setup, and will be "gone" shortly as part of the migration
> to "thick", so should not be included in the MPDS

I strongly disagree here.  Registrars and registries do not always
agree about what "expired" means as far as the registrant is
concerned, because of auto-renew and the way that registrars rely on
the grace period.

> Name Server: NS01.EXAMPLE-REGISTRAR.TLD10
> Name Server: NS02.EXAMPLE-REGISTRAR.TLD
> 
> ^ This information provides no _functional_ purpose

That claim has been roundly shown false.  Once again: it is useful to
know what the registry database thinks the (child) nameservers are as
compared to what the (parent) nameservers think the (child)
nameservers are, because sometimes there's a functional failure in
registry processes.  This is the way to detect that.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com