[gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Ed Pascoe ed at dnservices.co.za
Thu Dec 11 13:41:52 UTC 2014

Hi Gustavo,

I do have some comments on the document.

Paragraph 7. Why the requirement for the URL description of the EPP status?
It looks ugly, and is redundant if the requirement of paragraph 23 is

Paragraph 11: Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding this. Why the
requirement that additional fields proceed all the text specified in the
RA? I would expect additional information related to the domain to go with
the domain, and additional fields related to the registrant go with the
rest of the registrant info for example.   For a human this would make more
sense and be more readable, and for machine parsing the order should make
no difference anyway as long as the fields don't use any of the names in
the RA/RAA.

Finally let me add my voice to those who have said that this advisory DOES
add new requirements, and if the extremely detailed definitions of the text
layout are really required then this is effectively a new protocol. I would
much rather ICANN move towards the RDAP protocol than attempt to stretch
port 80 RDDS in directions it was never intended to go.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141211/d724c298/attachment.html>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list