> -----Original Message----- > From: Gould, James <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:59 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; > ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org <i...@antoin.nl>; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp- > eai-04 > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Scott, > > Thanks for the review and feedback. I provide responses to your feedback > embedded below. > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE- > B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://secure- > web.cisco.com/1bUEhaRz5CoSQPd4colm8eTGE5D6zPQvtrYPAzQf9pUSXnqD > Nq7mmnlZ8At92joPzY5DkJdQiiPe1mlyvgzDAdDz_shcqHzSugkfXA2qX9z7aQp0 > 6ld- > LnwMzxo2VGkwqFH5gLrI7qSYQlgj4Unll4AIUd6ALSZ38i2kjYqgA0AnBBjaJEVg7 > yUIN- > P8bpFGxQgN__tWour_sxUBBx2vUcVpmrR7SUG6UsUo5U3gb_YbWCYcRn8b > 4Rl06BQIL8B8k/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> > > On 12/6/21, 9:18 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext- > boun...@ietf.org on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > > A few questions/comments: > > Section 6: We need to provide the rationale for that SHOULD (Registries > SHOULD validate the domain names in the provided email addresses). What > does "validate" mean? For syntax? For reachability? > > JG - This is associated with validating the syntax. The goal is to ensure > that > the domain name, whether an ASCII or IDN domain name is a syntactic valid > domain name the may be reachable. Would it help to modify this to read > "Registries SHOULD validate the syntax of the domain names in the provided > email addresses so they may be reachable."?
[SAH] Syntax validity is no guarantee of reachability. The only way to confirm that an email address "works" is to send email to that address and confirm that it's delivered. I don't think we want to suggest that registries should start sending out email delivery tests, so maybe something like this instead: " Registries SHOULD ensure that the provided email addresses are syntactically valid to reduce the risk of future usability errors." > Section 7: What's significant about "eai-0.3"? The "0.3" part doesn't > track to > the current version of the draft; perhaps "1.0" would be better now. See > also > Section 5.2. > > JG - Yes, the namespace will be changed to "eai-1.0" once it passes WGLC > similar to what has happened in past EPP extensions with pointed > namespaces. [SAH] OK. > Section 8: It might be helpful to add more text to explain why > "Registries > MAY apply extra limitation to the email address syntax". Why might they > want to do that? It seems a little unusual to say that they MAY do > something, > but in the next sentence say, "These limitations are out of scope of this > document". > > JG - Agreed, this does not look to add value. Do you believe the > Implementation Considerations section should be removed, since the > contents really don't provide any material considerations? [SAH] Yes, that's probably a good idea. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
