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

Loesje Hermans loesje.hermans at dnsbelgium.be
Mon Dec 15 11:52:01 UTC 2014

Dear Gustavo,

I still have some questions after the last WHOIS clarification draft.

  1.  Q2 states ' In responses to domain name object queries: 1) to registries, and 2) to registrars for names in “thick” registries, the following fields are considered optional and should be treated as described in clarification 1’. That means that those fields are optional for all type of registries, ‘thick’ and ‘thin’?
  2.  Q21: what is meant by a fully qualified domain name? Is this with or without the dot at the end? I’m asking because the rfc’s usually refer to a fully qualified domain name when there should be a dot at the end. But in the examples in the WHOIS clarifications document are all without a dot behind the tld.
  3.  Q27 is quite confusing. I hope we are still talking about the output of a WHOIS domain name query and not overruling the rfc's? Assuming that this is just about the output, I find this clarification not necessary because it can be derived from other clarifications. Q24 says that fields cannot appear multiple times, unless the fields mentioned in Q25. Together with Q1, this makes that admin and tech contacts can only to appear once in the output.
  4.  About Q37, we will not have admin and tech contacts for registrars in our registry system, only for domain names. Did I miss a requirement somewhere that says we should? If there is no such requirement, what should we display in the output of a registrar WHOIS query? Can we treat them as optional fields?
  5.  My forth question is also valid for Q40.
  6.  Q42 says that the ‘WHOIS server’ field is considered optional in case the registrar doesn’t offer a WHOIS on port 43. Why is the ‘Referral URL’ not mention in this clarification? Are registrars obligated to offer a web-based WHOIS service and not to offer a WHOIS service on port 43?

I would also need some clarifications in case the registry uses host attributes instead of host objects. At the moment these are missing.
The questions we already have about this:

  1.  Section 1.7 of Specification 4 of the registry agreement defines the fields we will have to show in the output of a WHOIS nameserver query. Amongst those fields there are also registrar specific fields as ‘Registrar’, ‘WHOIS server’ and ‘Referral URL’. Since we will be using host attributes instead of host objects, we will not have this data available. Can we handle these fields as optional fields?
  2.  Section 1.7.1 of Specification 4 of the registry agreement defines the WHOIS queries that should be supported for nameservers. For the first query format there is an example nameserver ’NS1.EXAMPLE.TLD' used but for the second and third query format there is no example but a description '(nameserver name)’. This is confusing because it makes me wonder what the difference between 'NS1.EXAMPLE.TLD’ and '(nameserver name)’ is, besides de brackets of course.

Kind regards,

Loesje Hermans
Functional Analyst
+32 16 29 89 23

DNS Belgium vzw/asbl
Ubicenter - Philipssite 5, bus 13 - 3001 Leuven

[cid:09ee086c0b7e41ef0f09e359060c1a61f817d422 at zimbra]

On 10 Dec 2014, at 01:41, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org<mailto:gustavo.lozano at icann.org>> wrote:

Hello colleagues,

Attached you will find the Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory. Two versions are provided for your reference: clean version and redline against the original advisory (v 1.0) as published on 12 September 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en).

This draft version incorporates feedback gathered from various contracted parties, cases/emails sent to ICANN, the WHOIS Clarification Advisory meeting held at IETF 91 in November, and feedback sent to the gtld-tech mailing list.

A conference call, with the objective of gathering feedback on this draft version, will take place on Tuesday 16 December 2014. If you want to participate in the conference call, please send me an email to fabien.betremieux at icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux at icann.org>.

Please send any feedback or questions you have on this version of the advisory to the mailing list as soon as possible, in order for ICANN Staff to discuss internally and provide an answer during the conference call.

It's important to remember:
* This advisory is not meant to create new requirements for contracted parties.
* This advisory is not meant to redefine the WHOIS protocol.
* This advisory resulted from questions sent by contracted and third parties seeking clarification on the Whois (RDDS) requirements in the New gTLD base RA and 2013 RAA.

<Registry and Registrar RDDS Advisory - 1.0 vs 20141209[1][1].docx><Registry and Registrar RDDS Advisory - 20141209[3].docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141215/cc06efa4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DNSBelgiumSignature.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25720 bytes
Desc: DNSBelgiumSignature.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141215/cc06efa4/DNSBelgiumSignature-0001.jpg>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list