Dear John, fair point!
The suggested model with dummy value and extension seems to be a relevant signal. On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:17 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > In article <5f28bdeb6cbe4d3fa9bf9b969b170...@verisign.com> you write: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Thanks for the note, Dmitry. I get what you’re trying to do, but I don’t > think we can update Standard 69 (the set of > >EPP RFCs) this way. ... > > Regardless of the standards politics, I don't think it would be a good idea > to unilaterally change the meaning of the address field. It will take a > while for registries to upgrade to handle EAI mail and they need some way > to signal to the registrars that EAI addresses will work. > > > -- > Regards, > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
