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

Francisco Arias francisco.arias at icann.org
Mon Aug 3 20:24:47 UTC 2015

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.
>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
>“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

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

>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.

>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.

>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
we are giving that warning. You are correct that this is not a contract
requirement, hence the pass with warning.



>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.

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list