[gtld-tech] Whois Clarifications confusion

[Kal Feher]

Thank you again Rob for your feedback. I've commented on your points in line.

I think the fact that so much interpretation and speculation is required, for what was supposed to be a list of clarifications, indicates that this process needs to be rethought.
If there are system behaviour scenarios that ICANN does not like, then a separate discussions should occur on those. There may be repercussions much larger than originally perceived.

-----Original Message-----
From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of rob.golding at astutium.com
Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2014 6:13 PM
To: gtld-tech at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois Clarifications confusion

>> All fields are mandatory unless optional, excluding those that can be 
>> blank, or errors in the specification ;) Or in English
>> * optional fields - dont output the label & data if the data is not 
>> provided
>> * fields explicity mentioned as allowed to be blank  - output the 
>> label but no data if the data is not provided
>> * everything else - output the label and the data
> 
> KF - You and I have subtly different interpretations of Clarification

Where a 'clarification' contradicts the _contract_ then as the contact is the thing that is 'binding', I would always go with that :) Contract = what you must do, Clarifications tend to = 'we'd like this and use it to sneak things in the back-door'

KF - I suspect our experiences differ, which probably influences my perception of the likelihood of such an approach working. Unfortunately our recent experiences with ICANN have shown a very literal interpretation of all documents, to the point of absurdity. I think Registries may be at a disadvantage here because the output will be assessed during PDT, leaving us no room for such an argument. 

>>> Clarification 7. If IP addresses are provided for name servers 
>>> Clarification 8. Hosts may be added without IP addresses.
>> For self-referencing domains (glue) output the label, IP and FQDNs 
>> otherwise just label and FQDN
> KF -  It is perfectly legal to have no IP address for a host and to 
> assign a domain to such a host.

Not for any gTLD that I'm aware of - the registry will reject it at time of registration (happens *very* frequently according to my epp error
logs)
KF - You can register a domain without hosts. You can create hosts without IP addresses. You can then update a domain to point to such hosts. And this doesn't have to be restricted to subordinate hosts, though that appears to be the only circumstance considered in the communication. Consider domain1.example delegated to ns.domain2.example and domain2.example delegated to ns.domain1.example. 
I think whois should simply report what is in the registry. Therefore, optional elements need to be allowed to be empty. 

>>> I echo Alexander's request that a complete specification, with no 
>>> contradictions and no guesses, is required.
>> Yes, and that doenst contradict the *contract*
> KF - completely agree.

Rob