Hi Mario, On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:58:14AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Il 08/06/2023 15:39, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: >> True, we could define an entity object class that serves the DNR >> and RIR purposes with a simpler JSON, just like we chose to define >> domain, IP network, and autonomous system number object classes >> that are specific to these registries' business. However, before >> abandoning the JSContact effort, one question to ask would be: >> Would it be short-sighted in precluding future user cases for >> entities in other registries (say, RDAP use for space related >> registration data)? > > [ML] Would like to answer your question trying at the same time to > recap the reasons why 3 years ago we didn't bring on Gavin's > proposal about "a straight mapping of RFC5733 contact objects into > JSON". > > I remember that at ROW 2019 George Michaelson from APNIC gave a > presentation > (https://regiops.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ROW8-RDAPPanel-In-defence-of-jCard%E2%80%99s-goals-George-Michaelson.pdf) > about which requirements a contact representation aiming to replace > jCard was supposed to meet according to his experience. > > In that circumstance, it was clear to everyone that the EPP contact > representation was pretty unfit to handle non-western registry data > in general. > > Think that hopefully all of those requirements are matched by > JSContact (e.g. we have recently updated the spec to better model > non-western addresses but the work is still ongoing). > > Tom and George, can you please say your word on this matter ?
It appears that JSContact meets our requirements around internationalisation, in the sense that it's possible to provide localised versions of the data included in the record as required. -Tom _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
