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

Kal Feher Kal.Feher at ariservices.com
Thu Jul 30 02:10:33 UTC 2015

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 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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