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

[Farell FOLLY]

Sorry to respond to this thread so late.

Typically speaking, search queries and results or any technical process will be done using A-labels since the actual DNS infrastructures cannot process data with characters outside ASCII codes. U-labels will only be used to display the data to the end-users in accordance with the language used on their stations. It is not an imminent wish to change the DNS infrastructure to support non-ASCII characters, otherwise; we would have not been struggling to work with IDN and converting strings to ASCII does of the form “xn—“




@__f_f__

Best Regards
____________________________________

(Ekue) Farell FOLLY
NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
linkedin.com/in/farellf 






> On 12 Oct 2018, at 23:24, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments.
> @Farzaneh...on your comment below:
> 
> >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.
> 
> My rationale was if there is no technical limitation to support U-label lookups, as specified in section 6 - RFC 7482 and section 5 - RFC 5891, then why not support queries in a form more natural to the language speaker/user? It is not clear to me why there has been no clarity on the searchability function of RDAP, but if there is support to remove the comment based on user experience, then I am happy for it to be removed.
> 
> ----
> Tomslin 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:47, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <http://linkedin.com/in/farellf> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 24 Sep 2018, at 05:37, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com <mailto: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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181021/7eac8550/attachment.htm>