Thursday, 3 August 2023 17:48:19 CEST writes:
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:49 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen
<a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
Hi,
...
IMHO, it's more nuanced than that. Text-capable phones and all-ASCII
email addresses
can be verified via automated processes, and there are some regular
processes in both the INR and
DNR spaces to periodically re-verify them.
EAI sorta breaks that model in that an SMTPUTF8 address can work for
Alice but not for Bob.
Isn't that exactly like what happened when IPv6 was born?
I don't get what's significantly different about EAI. So you can verify
that a number is callable today without learning whether the recipient will
pick up the phone later if the display says "caller suppressed", and you
can verify that an EAI address is reachable without learning whether it'll
be reachable by some ESP later. It's a difference, but I can't see it as
significant. What I am I missing?
I think requiring the collection of 2 email addresses impinges on
policy (and is unworkable in
many of today's registries). But I think Jim has a point. Are we
painting ourselves into a corner?
What's to stop us from being here 3 years from now because a policy
body is pointing at
RFC 6530 and saying "it says to have an ASCII alternative"* ?
I agree that it's unworkable.
Spinning around in an infinite loop now in order to avoid a possible
infinite loop in three years isn't great either.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
