The comment is in body. > On 13 Dec 2021, at 15:15, Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> -----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."
The check of existing of the domain (MX or at least A/AAAA record) from the email address may be added. I am not sure that it should be there but it also raises the probability that the email address is valid. > >> 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 -- Taras Heichenko ta...@academ.kiev.ua _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
