[gtld-tech] Draft updated PDT specs and request for feedback

[Francisco Arias]

Hi Kal,

Please see my responses below.


On 7/29/15, 7:10 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher at ariservices.com> wrote:

>My comments on the draft test documents.
>
>PDT_TP_Whois:
>1.	The following line appears to have no matching explicit requirement
>from the RA or the Whois clarification, it should be removed. In
>particular the portion relating to the ability to copy and paste the
>output:
>“When rendered using a modern web browser the Web whois port 80/443
>output MUST contain a section corresponding to the Whois port 43 output
>that can be copied as a single unit and pasted into a text file.”

We are looking into this and should have a response later.

>2.	The AWIP footer should be optional for all reply types. Neither the
>AWIP policy, nor the Whois clarifications require that the AWIP footer
>appear under a specific reply type. It is acceptable to include it in all
>reply types. The text in section 5.5 of the PDT Whois_TP (Appendix)
>should be updated to reflect the two policy statements by including ‘AWIP
>footer’ as an optional section above the legal disclaimer for each reply
>type.

I’m not sure I follow, this requirement comes from the AWIP. Am I missing
something?

>3.	The AWIP section description in 5.6.8 PDT_Whois_TP (Appendix) should
>include both acceptable URLs found in
>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-awip-2014-07-02-en. The
>Whois clarification Advisory references the AWIP announcement and the URL
>contained therein and does not explicitly override using either EPP
>status link.

Agreed, we should fix that for the final version.

>PDT_Whois_TC_CLI:
>WhoisCLI01 - There is no Char Encoding declaration section in the current
>pdtwhois.xml file or matched schema files. I’m assuming this variable
>doesn’t refer to the xml header. Should a new input file and schema have
>been provided with the drafts test cases? If so, please send that to the
>list for review as well.

Correct, the new version of the schema files will include a field for that.

>PDT_Whois_TC_Web:
>WhoisWeb01 – There is no explicit or implied requirement for HTTPS for
>web based whois in the Registry Agreement or the clarifications
>announcement. The lack of HTTPS should not be cause for a warning. The
>previous PDT_Whois_TC_Web document (E) had HTTPS as optional and I’m not
>aware of any recent approved policy which overrides this. Perhaps the
>pdtwhois.xml file should include an element stating whether HTTPS is
>supported or not. If it is, then the criteria for PASS, WARN and FAIL can
>remain unchanged. If HTTPS is explicitly not supported, then HTTPS
>testing should be limited to confirming that it is in fact not available.

Per the IAB statement on Internet Confidentiality at
https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/
we are giving that warning. You are correct that this is not a contract
requirement, hence the pass with warning.

Regards,

-- 
Francisco.






>
>--
>Kal Feher
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On
>Behalf Of Francisco Arias
>Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 7:24 PM
>To: gtld-tech at icann.org
>Cc: Russ Weinstein
>Subject: [gtld-tech] Draft updated PDT specs and request for feedback
>
>This message contains a digitally signed email which can be read by
>opening the attachment.