Dear Scott, On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:20 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> *From:* regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry Belyavsky > *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2020 8:11 AM > *To:* Thomas Corte (TANGO support) <thomas.co...@knipp.de> > *Cc:* regext@ietf.org > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt > > > > Well, > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:47 PM Thomas Corte (TANGO support) < > thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > On 10/11/20 13:39, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Here is the updated version of the draft describing the usage of the > > Internationalized Email Addresses (EAI) in the EPP protocol. > > This version provides a specification to submit EAI to the registries via > > the EPP protocol extension. > > > > Any feedback is welcomed! > > As James already pointed out, I'm not sure why the extension is even > necessary to accomplish this on a purely technical (protocol) level. > > eppcom:minTokenType is based on xsd:token, which is based on > xsd:normalizedString and adds whitespace collapsing. Unless that > introduces a problem I'm not a aware of, none of this prevents the > specification of internationalized e-mail addresses for contacts in EPP; > in particular, it doesn't limit the available characters to ASCII. > > Many registries (like e.g. Neustar for .biz, or the TLDs run by our own > TANGO system) already accept them right now. It would be silly to require > them to use an extension to do the same in the future. > > > > If the registries work this way, it's great but it means they formally > violate the EPP protocol. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5733#section-2.6 > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1hzu_WlPioMsUO-ycVN-zDMofl2fHO7fLFN8tmG0h1ua4fI7qT4zfOJ3Y4VH3VasUchmJp8BP_rL5zVbgz5Qjdgw93z2s0rn5IOSMAy_ZGBXuMk3s8B3BMGX0d8hicT9dyXOwlkRQnFmzwIgpA5BOd8sbnrlbrKbu8SEciN4EpA5mkN5hpMIjviWULHfq6XuWUUJrZz-20koRV6ebQtU1N9ikjlyYDg1KrqYVSBJlGWY4zva7EQYi3axiAgOibVz7qgLgS7n5UOVj0nDXOzZNApINoxoNmRQDb5ZujVAoo1c/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc5733%23section-2.6> > denotes: > > > > Email address syntax is defined in [RFC5322]. This mapping does not > prescribe minimum or maximum lengths for character strings used to > represent email addresses. > > > > EAI addresses do not fit the RFC 5322. > > > > The 1st version of the draft was basically replacing RFC 5322 to RFC 6530 > :) > > > > *[SAH] Perhaps there’s a case to be made for RFC 6530 being an update to > RFC 5322. I’m going to see if I can run some tests to confirm it, but I, > too, suspect that EPP as-is won’t have any issues with internationalized > email addresses.* > > > > *Scott* > I'm sure EPP itself will not. Do you think it's reasonable to indicate such support via an extension or just leave it as a registry (internal) policy? -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
