Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER-FOR REVIEW/COMMENT: Draft Slides for Brussels Meeting

[Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>]

 1.  Cover WHOIS port 43 compatibility in a separate slide[24] [not a as 
"model" under slide 17]:
 2.     - Complete compatibility with existing port 43 request and response in 
ASCII only   [NOT POSSIBLE]
 3.     - Enhanced port 43 request allowing domain names in U-label form or 
A-label form  [current proposal]
 4.     - Enhanced port 43 request allowing domain names in U-label form or 
A-label form plus requested script code
 5.     -  Enhanced port 43 response allowing ASCII and UTF-8  [current 
proposal]
 6.     - Shift to another port - replacing port 43 - {discussion}
 7.     - Shift to web-based port 80  HTML5 {discussion}
 8.


Hi all, I think Bob has a substantive comment about model 4. He wanted to 
separate it from the other three models. This reflects a thinking that backward 
compatibility is a separate issue from the models.

Bob, did I capture your intent right, and what does the working group think?

To recap, the three models are:

Model 1: registrant submit in must be present language with option in local 
script.
Model 2: registrants submit in local script, registrars provide point of 
contact for help.
Model 3: registrants submit in local script, registrars do transliteration.
Model 4: registrars provide backward compatibility for port 43 whois that is 
8-bit clean.

I agree with Bob that model 4 sounds like different from all other three 
models, it talks about details on how to make IDN in WHOIS happen, so 
essentially we could use model 4 as a way to implement model 1 and model 2.

What do you think?

Warmly,
Steve