Re: [gtld-tech] Draft updated PDT specs and request for feedback
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@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 7:24 PM To: gtld-tech@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.
On 29 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Kal Feher wrote:
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.
I think that if no support is claimed, then it should not be tested at all. Luis Muñoz Director, Registry Operations ____________________________ http://www.uniregistry.link/ 2161 San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office +1 949 706 2300 x 4242 lem@uniregistry.link
Hi Kal, Please see my responses below. On 7/29/15, 7:10 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com> wrote:
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.”
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 type.
I’m not sure I follow, this requirement comes from the AWIP. Am I missing something?
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.
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.
Correct, the new version of the schema files will include a field for that.
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.
Per the IAB statement on Internet Confidentiality at https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/ we are giving that warning. You are correct that this is not a contract requirement, hence the pass with warning. Regards, -- Francisco.
-- Kal Feher
-----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 7:24 PM To: gtld-tech@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.
Thank you Francisco for the clarifications. My response to point 2 is below. -- Kal Feher -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2015 6:25 AM To: Kal Feher; gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft updated PDT specs and request for feedback Hi Kal, Please see my responses below. On 7/29/15, 7:10 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com> wrote:
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.”
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 type.
I’m not sure I follow, this requirement comes from the AWIP. Am I missing something? KF I wasn’t very clear in my statement. I believe the AWIP footer must appear in the domain response. However I also believe it may appear in all other responses. This is based on the AWIP documentation which does not explicitly include or exclude that footer for any responses. That would mean having the AWIP footer as required in the domain response and optional in all other responses. The appendix for the Whois_PDT_TP would have the following changes: -5.5.3 would remain unchanged. -5.5.2, 5.5.4 and 5.5.5 would have the AWIP footer added as optional (I'd suggest above the Legal disclaimer section).
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.
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.
Correct, the new version of the schema files will include a field for that.
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.
Per the IAB statement on Internet Confidentiality at https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/ we are giving that warning. You are correct that this is not a contract requirement, hence the pass with warning. Regards, -- Francisco.
-- Kal Feher
-----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 7:24 PM To: gtld-tech@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.
Kal, Please see my comments below. On 8/3/15, 4:46 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com> wrote:
From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org]
On 7/29/15, 7:10 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com> wrote:
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.”
I think this text is simply asking for the Whois output to be text that can be fed into the checking engine (e.g., not an image) so that we can see that it complies with the requirements in Spec 4 that apply to both port-43 and web-Whois. Makes sense?
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.
I’m not sure I follow, this requirement comes from the AWIP. Am I missing something?
KF I wasn’t very clear in my statement. I believe the AWIP footer must appear in the domain response. However I also believe it may appear in all other responses. This is based on the AWIP documentation which does not explicitly include or exclude that footer for any responses. That would mean having the AWIP footer as required in the domain response and optional in all other responses. The appendix for the Whois_PDT_TP would have the following changes: -5.5.3 would remain unchanged. -5.5.2, 5.5.4 and 5.5.5 would have the AWIP footer added as optional (I'd suggest above the Legal disclaimer section).
Thanks for this, I get what you mean now. I think you are right, we should update the PDT specs to say the AWIP footer MUST only be required in response to Whois queries for domain names and MAY appear in responses to other queries (e.g., registrar and host). Regards, -- Francisco.
Thank you for the additional clarifications Francisco, My concern regarding the web presentation restrictions was regarding the ability to provide a more user friendly format for the data. I think you've allayed my fears. -- Kal Feher -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, 6 August 2015 10:41 AM To: Kal Feher; gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft updated PDT specs and request for feedback Kal, Please see my comments below. On 8/3/15, 4:46 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com> wrote:
From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org]
On 7/29/15, 7:10 PM, "Kal Feher" <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com> wrote:
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.”
I think this text is simply asking for the Whois output to be text that can be fed into the checking engine (e.g., not an image) so that we can see that it complies with the requirements in Spec 4 that apply to both port-43 and web-Whois. Makes sense?
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.
I’m not sure I follow, this requirement comes from the AWIP. Am I missing something?
KF I wasn’t very clear in my statement. I believe the AWIP footer must appear in the domain response. However I also believe it may appear in all other responses. This is based on the AWIP documentation which does not explicitly include or exclude that footer for any responses. That would mean having the AWIP footer as required in the domain response and optional in all other responses. The appendix for the Whois_PDT_TP would have the following changes: -5.5.3 would remain unchanged. -5.5.2, 5.5.4 and 5.5.5 would have the AWIP footer added as optional (I'd suggest above the Legal disclaimer section).
Thanks for this, I get what you mean now. I think you are right, we should update the PDT specs to say the AWIP footer MUST only be required in response to Whois queries for domain names and MAY appear in responses to other queries (e.g., registrar and host). Regards, -- Francisco.
participants (3)
-
Francisco Arias -
Kal Feher -
Luis E. Muñoz