+1, even if the registries went through the effort to support this, what registrar would use it and who would perform the translation or transliteration to justify the effort? —
JG [cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:53 AM, Jody Kolker <jkol...@godaddy.com<mailto:jkol...@godaddy.com>> wrote: +1 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Rik Ribbers <rik.ribb...@sidn.nl<mailto:rik.ribb...@sidn.nl>> Date: 7/21/16 12:43 PM (GMT+01:00) To: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org<mailto:gustavo.loz...@icann.org>> Cc: regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] regext - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 96 Gustavo, I have been reading http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-final-12jun15-en.pdf until Recommendation #1 What happened to Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that it is not desirable to make transformation of contact information mandatory. Is this still applicable? And if so, why would any registry even consider implementing such a complex EPP extension? Gr, Rik On 25 Jun 2016, at 01:38, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.loz...@icann.org<mailto:gustavo.loz...@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Colleagues, I would like to discuss the status of: * draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-01 * draft-lozano-rdap-nameservers-sharing-name-01 I am working in the support for Transliteration and Translation of Contact information in RDAP and EPP, see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-f inal-12jun15-en.pdf. The following draft is the initial version to support Transliteration and Translation in RDAP: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-regext-rdap-transf-contact-inf-00 A draft to support Transliteration and Translation in EPP should be published next week. I think that 15-20 minutes should be enough for the four drafts. Regards, Gustavo On 6/10/16, 07:00, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of gal...@elistx.com<mailto:gal...@elistx.com>> wrote: The change that was made was to reduce the requested schedule time to 90 minutes from 2 hours. It seems the IETF schedule is overbooked and they were asking WG chairs to reconsider their meeting requests. Although we have a number of active documents at this time we are not expecting new work discussions as we had the last time, so the chairs believed the shorter time was reasonable. Thanks! Antoin and Jim On 10 Jun 2016, at 9:40, "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" wrote: An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Jim Galvin, a Chair of the regext working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Registration Protocols Extensions Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area Session Requester: Jim Galvin Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: dnsop dnssd dprive dbound dane lager homenet Second Priority: ianaplan Special Requests: Please avoid conflicts with, in order: 1. DNS BOFs 2. ART BOFs 3. ART WGs --------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
