On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:47:33PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: Hi Edward, DB-WG,
> > On 6 Nov 2019, at 21:17, Piotr Strzyzewski <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> DB-WG: should we allow non-ASCII addresses in the RIPE database? > > > > Do you mean email addresses or street addresses as well? > > > > I mean to continue to allow non-ASCII (i.e. Latin-1 encoded) IDN email > addresses, such as the example mentioned. Or, do we automatically encode > non-ASCII characters as punycode. I do not object having properly coded non-ASCII email addresses in the database. > >>> P.S. Not that anybody should really care, but for this one lone resarcher > >>> it would be maximally convenient if all domain names represented within > >>> the > >>> data base were encoded as punycode, where necessary. In fact, it is my > >>> belief that 99.99% of them already are, which thus renders the > >>> "transition" > >>> to that standard essentially pain free. > >>> > >> > >> DB-WG: is punycode for domain names a viable alternative for encoding > >> non-ASCII email addresses? > > > > Works for me. > > We can make explicit support for the punycode format, and allows (full) IDN > email addresses to be used (as this syntax should be interchangeable with the > normal form). > > Whois could automatically translate to and from the punycode format, if an > IDN format address is encountered. > > > > >> For example, the punycode equivalent [email protected] is already > >> a valid value for the e-mail (or abuse-c) attribute. And what about RDAP? Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski
