Dear James, If we indicate in the EPP greeting/Login support of urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 for old contact scheme without EAI and urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.1 for a new scheme with EAI, will it be enough?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:53 PM Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> wrote: > Dmitry, > > > > The mechanism that we’ve used in the past is signaling support in the EPP > greeting and login services. Support for an EPP extension is signaled per > RFC in the EPP greeting and login services. We signal support for an > operation practice via defining an XML namespace that is included in the > EPP greeting and login services. See > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03#section-3 > for signaling support for draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer, and > see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03#section-4 > for signaling support for draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces. > > > > -- > > > > JG > > > > > > *James Gould *Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > > > *From: *regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Dmitry Belyavsky < > beld...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM > *To: *John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> > *Cc: *"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenb...@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" < > regext@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt > > > > We could update the contact scheme version to indicate the EAI support as > it is relevant for the contract mapping only. > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, 18:51 John Levine, <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > In article <542572b0e6284550a9bee035bea2d...@verisign.com> you write: > > [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. > > Urrgh. RFC 6530 is not an update to 5322. Don't go there. I agree there > is no > great technical problem sending UTF-8 address strings through EPP. > > I'm getting the impression that what we need is a way for the client > to ask the registry whether it can handle EAI addresses so it knows > what to accept registrants. I can imagine a variety of ways to do that. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1E2O9BAxjfPFRfBkfkdxxMTw4FeUHvpkoq0D8pXADkch3J8zQcnJFteI9-DnviuVEI5t6W5sTnonl8zXd9JKRrx-gGoGyQXdMImvWtBZf9dYNpujyBnEMqxC1Ly9rBkcppwn1Q8waImJkzHzgPSR5W076Bq_Qj1fvERIlfLyfP1t5QgoTwZ2gpmuX85-A2Z_DzpzUdNJ-F5_W-JNHhs7NJcXcs3bEciqsCWn8Pogs9sG9e5TijoAKpJc7gqcV6DlHoJghQ11jLtbMvnQ48zpr3_uROAOzByjqHEoLAyKKmWY/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext> > > -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
