August 2015 - gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

Verification of the ROID in PDT and upcoming Advisory
by Francisco Arias Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As a follow up to the draft updated PDT specifications (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-22jul1 5-en) and the gTLD Registries Operational Workshop held in Buenos Aires, I would like to let you know that ICANN is planning to release a verification of the ROID format as part of Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT). The ROID check would be done as part of both the EPP and Whois tests cases. The verification would check two things: 1) that the ROID is properly formatted as described in RFC 5730, per Specification 6 of the registry agreement; and 2) that the repository identifier used is already registered with IANA (https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-repository-ids/epp-repository-ids.xht ml). This update will be implemented at the same time as the updates regarding the RDDS (Whois) Advisory. We will implement warnings (no failures) in case of deviations starting on 2 November 2015, and strict enforcement will start on 31 January 2016. Finally, ICANN is planning to release in the next few weeks an advisory at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/advisories-2012-02-25-en describing the considerations that registries should have when migrating ROIDs. I have attached a draft of the advisory and would appreciate any input you may have by 17 August. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, -- Francisco Arias Director, Technical Services Domain Name Services & Industry Engagement Global Domains Division ICANN

2 5

Call for Presentations for TechDay at ICANN Dublin
by Dr Eberhard Lisse Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

Hi, As usual we shall be organizing TechDay on Monday of the coming ICANN meeting in Dublin. Please submit ideas for presentations to the list addresses where this message appears or to any of the following email addresses: el(a)lisse.na ondrej.filip(a)nic.cz As we have a very small budget presenters are responsible for their own transport and room and board, though we might be able to assist the most riveting proposal :-)-O As the name suggests, talks must be of a technical (or operational, perhaps even administrative) nature, and should revolve around TLDs, but otherwise we are quite open. Please forward this to gNSO and other lists as well :-)-O greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Re: [gtld-tech] Draft updated PDT specs and request for feedback
by Kal Feher Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

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.” 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. 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. 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. -- Kal Feher -----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 7:24 PM To: gtld-tech(a)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.

3 5