Subject: [Ietf-not43] off-list comments on requirements

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:19:35 -0500

I've received the following off-list comments regarding the
requirements draft.  I thought I'd share them and feedback
is welcome:

1) The internationalization considerations section should
state that names of attributes or tags (or whatever you wish
to call them, and this will probably vary depending on the
final set of technologies used) should be displayed according
to a users locale and the values must be able to support
internationalized content.  (why start with an easy one :) )

2) The text restricting the scope of domain registries in
section 2.1.4 is too vague.  Language is needed to stipulate
the association of a domain registry with a gTLD or ccTLD.

3) Because this is a document talking about the requirements
of a protocol (or protocols) and not policy, the SHOULD should
change to a MUST in sections 3.1.7 and 3.1.8.  In addition,
perhaps some language referencing section 3.1.4 and its
relevance to these two sections.

4) Section 3.1.9 is not "parallel" with respect to what is
allowed by a protocol and what is just allowed.  The possible
fix is to add "MAY allow" to aggregation of data and change
the "MAY" to a "MUST" for data indexes.

5) Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.7 both need more verbiage about
substring searches vs. exact matches and aren't exactly clear
on which is which.  Also of note, the desired behavior
when a subset of a name is below the threshold of a reasonable
subset.  Both sections also neglect to specify what is to be
contained in the result set.  This may result in the addition
of two new requirements, such as "domain name search by registrant"
and "domain registrant search by domain name" or something
of this nature.

6) With the current language, section 3.4.3 would also apply
to TLD's, so that a lookup of "name" or "com" would result in
the same result set as "foo.name" or "foo.com".

7) As a general note, the draft does not specify what should
be in contact data or operation data... or in other words, help
specify what will eventually be the contents of the schemas.
I don't know if the requirements draft is the right place for
this information.

-andy

-- 
Andrew Newton
VeriSign Applied Research
[email-masked]