[Public Comments] Draft Comment on Proposed gTLD-Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Profile

[Juan Alejo Peirano]

Hi all!

Thank you Tomslin and others that had contribute with comments to this
draft! It is certainly challenging to go through the RFCs and establish the
correct link with the proposed documents.

I just made a couple of comments already on the draft. Please let me know
if you have questions or concerns. I will try to make some more during the
day.

Thank you!

Juan Alejo Peirano

El vie., 12 oct. 2018 a las 6:46, farzaneh badii (<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>)
escribió:

> Thank you for the draft Tomslin. I appreciate it very much. I have some
> suggestions and additions. Note that I don't have a technical background so
> I might be wrong. I will continue putting them in the Google doc but since
> the deadline is approaching I thought we tackle issues one by one until the
> deadline:
> In the draft it says:
>
> NCSG believes that support for RDAP lookup queries and responses using
> both A-label and U-label should be mandatory. Therefore, we propose that
> section 2.1 of the RDAP Technical Implementation Guide should be updated to
> “The RDAP server MUST support Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) RDAP
> lookup queries using A-label and U-label format [RFC5890] for domain
> names and name server objects”
>
> FB:  don't agree with this. At the moment we are not sure about the
> searchability function for any of the RDAP lookup queries and it should
> stay like that until we understand searchability better. I suggest remove.
>
> ***
>
> In section 2.2 says “An RDAP server that receives a query string with a
> mixture of A-labels and U-labels SHOULD reject the query” we suggest that
> this mixture of labels should respond appropriately instead of reject
> queries.
>
> FBI:my interpretation of RFC is that it allows to be rejected. I suggest
> delete. see the RFC 7482 : IDNs SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of
> A-labels and U-labels; that is, internationalized labels in an IDN SHOULD
> be either all A-labels or all U-labels. It is possible for an RDAP client
> to assemble a query string from multiple independent data sources. Such a
> client might not be able to perform conversions between A-labels
> and U-labels. An RDAP server that receives a query string with a mixture
> of A-labels and U-labels MAY convert all the U-labels to A-labels,
> perform IDNA processing, and proceed with exact-match In such cases, the
> response to be returned to the query source may not match the input from
> the query source. Alternatively, the server MAY refuse to process the
> query.
>
> ****
>
> Section 4.1 mentions just the A-Labels “The name server's name MUST be
> specified in the ldhName in A-label format” and we suggest as in 2.1 that
> should also include U-Labels.
>
>
> FB: I think this should not be a must and should be deleted.
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:46 AM Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Tomslin for drafting. It is very good draft and you tackled many
>> important points. Well done.
>>
>> I have have some minor suggestions.
>>
>> @__f_f__
>>
>> Best Regards
>> ____________________________________
>>
>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY
>> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
>> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2018, at 05:37, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As you know, the public comment period for the proposed gTLD-Registration
>> Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Profile  is currently open. It closes on 13
>> October 2018. On behalf of the comment drafting team, please find the link
>> to the NCSG draft we have prepared for your review, edit and comment.
>> *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g4VtzmTe9qTSC8h8RPuT4HMb0c83odIN75wBdDA2VVg/edit
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g4VtzmTe9qTSC8h8RPuT4HMb0c83odIN75wBdDA2VVg/edit>*
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ----
>> Tomslin
>>
>>>
>>

-- 
Juan Alejo Peirano
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181012/9afbf446/attachment.htm>