Colleagues, I’ve attached the slides from today’s (4-Nov) session on the gTLD RDAP profile. Thank you all of you that attended either in person or remotely. Please see below my notes and let me know if I missed or misrepresented something. We agreed to: A.1 Change 1.3.2 to have HTTPS as a MUST and as requirement in the bootstraping, but allow HTTP as optional A.2 Clarify requirement in 2.8.3 re: bootstrapping and 1.3.6 re: requirement for IPv4 and IPv6 transport A.3 Change 1.4.1 to allow queries with mixed A-label and U-label IDNs A.4 Remove requirements in 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 about blank spaces and newlines A.5 Keep the requirement in 2.8.2 regarding caching or issue re: change of the bootstrapping entry A.6 Keep requirement in 1.3.4 to register RDAP extensions before using them A.7 Keep requirement in 1.4.3 to maintain the case of the data as received in EPP A.8 Keep the "last update DB" item described in 1.4.12 as a new event type A.9 Keep the requirement in 1.5.2 to include U-label format of IDN in response A.10 Fix requirements regarding thin registry's for fields to be included in 1.5.8 and through the profile A.11 Keep the requirement in 1.5.14 to show the registrar expiration date A.12 Clarify language in 1.5.17 regarding requirement to show only allocated variants A.13 Keep requirement in section 1.5.18 to use a remarks member with title "EPP Status Codes" A.14 Clarify requirement in 1.5.19 regarding the secureDNS member to be shown if stored by the registry or registrar A.15 Remove the requirement for Boolean search capabilitiesout until there is an RFC. Once there is an RFC, ICANN should be able to require implementation using existing contractual mechanism (Francisco to confirm) A.16 The behavior for responses for multiple host objects (section 2.3) should be specified in a RDAP extension A.17 Keep the re:related mechanism in section 2.4 for the registry to refer to the registrar (no need to specify it in a RDAP extension) A.18 Clarify text in 2.9.1 as requested A.19 Have the EPP status "ok" mapped to "active" in the profile We have the following open issues: I.1 What requirements should be for the CA to be used in TLS or whether to use DANE I.2 Whether registrars that are queried for a name they don't sponsor should respond with HTTP 404 as a MUST or have the option to redirect (section 3.1.2) I.3 Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service I.4 Whether to require implementation of differentiated access in RDAP for registries Other pending issues: P.1. Francisco to check if we can already include the requirements from the Translation & Transliteration PDP in the profile P.2. Francisco to check on the timeline of the requirement for registrars to provide the registrar expiration date to registries P.3. Francisco to check if ICANN would be able to require implementation of the Boolean search capabilities using existing contractual mechanism Regards, -- Francisco.