[gtld-tech] WHOIS Clarification Advisory Scorecard

[Gould, James]

Francisco,

Thank you for hosting the call.  I have a few other issues that I raised on the call, which include:


  1.  The incorrect interpretation of the Section 1.4 sentence "The fields specified below set forth the minimum output requirements” in Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement as “identifies the set of fields listed as the minimum set to be present in Whois output” that references three sample query responses.  The WHOIS requirements should strictly specify the format and behavior of WHOIS and not dictate data collection and verification requirements of the SRS, which should be addressed in Specification 6 of the Registry Agreement.  Much of the clarifications are driven on this incorrect interpretation, including clarifications 1, 2, 36, 39, and 40.
  2.  The request to allow the WHOIS New Field RSEP to specify where the new WHOIS fields will be placed, meaning not requiring them to be placed at the end.
  3.  Partial match is not equivalent to Searchable WHOIS as referenced in the ICANN feedback, since it only does a like instead of an exact match on the primary keys as opposed to finding matches across all of the object data elements.   Evaluating existing WHOIS implementations that have matured through many years to drive interface requirements for future implementations is highly recommended in the goal of creating a consistent and stable WHOIS interface.
  4.  There is no reason to change the PDT Specification if the clarifications do not define new requirements.  The recommendation is to keep the PDT Specification as is and ensure that all clarifications are truly clarifications.
  5.  For #5 in your message, I believe what is considered finalized must be defined and agreed to, and the process for clarification advisories needs to be formally defined and agreed to by both parties to the contract.

Thanks,


—


JG


[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould at Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Jan 14, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org<mailto:francisco.arias at icann.org>> wrote:

Colleagues,

Following today’s call, I noted the below as the remaining open issues.

1. The street and voice fields for contacts being required [Jim Gould]
2. Partial match on names/nameserver object queries not being allowed by
default [Jim]
3. Contacts (1 admin = 1 tech) in registrar object queries being required
[Jim]
4. The IDN field should be placed next to the domain name field [Rubens
Kuhl]
5. The implementation date should be six or twelve months after finalizing
the advisory [Jim]


I’m raising these internally and will report back shortly.

Regards,

--
Francisco.




On 1/12/15, 3:14 PM, "Francisco Arias" <francisco.arias at icann.org<mailto:francisco.arias at icann.org>> wrote:

Colleagues,

Call details are as follows:

Start time: 2015-01-13 17:00 UTC
Duration: 60 minutes
Remote participation: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/tech-services/

Alternatively, you can use phone bridge as follows.

Phone bridge access numbers: http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-PGI
Participant code: 283 940 2851

Please note that you can have bi-directional audio through Adobe Connect.
If you are using the phone bridge, you should mute your Adobe Connect,
otherwise it will create audio feedback.

Regards,

--
Francisco.




On 1/8/15, 4:49 PM, "Francisco Arias" <francisco.arias at icann.org<mailto:francisco.arias at icann.org>> wrote:

It seems I was missing text in row #7. Please use the attached. The only
difference with v05 is adding one sentence in row #7.

--
Francisco.



On 1/7/15, 6:13 PM, "Francisco Arias" <francisco.arias at icann.org<mailto:francisco.arias at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

I’ve attached a scorecard with the list of issues that have been raised
and ICANN’s response. We provide rational in the cases in which we think
we should follow a different path than that proposed by the reporter(s)
of
the issue.

This is still a draft and we plan to host a conference call on next
Tuesday 13 January 2015 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. We’ll share call
details in a separate email.

Regards,

--
Francisco.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20150116/cdf8d757/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png
Type: image/png
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20150116/cdf8d757/BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E081.png>