Dimtry,
I don’t believe there is the need for a new contact XML namespace, but it would be associated with the new XML namespace (urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:eppEAI-1.0) defined in draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai. -- JG [cid:[email protected]] James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected]<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email protected]> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:59 PM To: James Gould <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt Dear James, If we indicate in the EPP greeting/Login support of urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 for old contact scheme without EAI and urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.1 for a new scheme with EAI, will it be enough? On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:53 PM Gould, James <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dmitry, The mechanism that we’ve used in the past is signaling support in the EPP greeting and login services. Support for an EPP extension is signaled per RFC in the EPP greeting and login services. We signal support for an operation practice via defining an XML namespace that is included in the EPP greeting and login services. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03#section-3<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1kbbME8WxKH25Af398m-OdqUFjso557LWijQiFXQJ0UKuX4cZCZzvDbYaHCY2_clcdljSgNx33sKFt3KGtedibBS3rd7Wn-tjukLzyRje6FwtvocFZuU1taYezRymzvBZLrldkbICauhkSsHRwazoFoHJepPRC6Q29CN67WEfGRnRBhURM55BobSdxDlos3bzBjeAVgNZ2oo3W_D3k7qndME5v-P8RlGiMBYYOnHXTBW6lDhznLqy1qBTvRiOl1ikEZMFhPPlvc7CdrjXu9iJcjMbQnUP7KNOmkd3ipkG-p0/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03%23section-3> for signaling support for draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer, and see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03#section-4<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fDC9N8uU6IPT_EF_7uAAVznUD8SeRiQfEspxbZ7K462x3pUcWXANQLl65DhwDm42Tnzst5sWdgJoVVwVaV1nwfEeLIyJ84n7hf0no3KNDmr2FSnfWqoUXwz7CcJKtVHxVeqCPxPrSAtXLVXqMNxyXq43d3XwpQocebl_3CR6r5qfOs6MYXycUvkWQIrUmoVDWKVBZrlAb2X9LGj-xHMMzptz9EHkzj73LblhoBU1TlzhwfEE7NZvB629ZmMF3aDzE-uj8tBvwsCTWyPC2vNVAorS3uKjIAJx0Y5lZgMXKV4/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03%23section-4> for signaling support for draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces. -- JG [cid:[email protected]] James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Itq6Iu9Ce3lRF7_uiaHCucQVya2sg9-ft8Yg6yP0k3-0H1E8iw8Qqmyc31A7wscCr2uY1m-HhwBC5gY9_wQA6GqtaTqqrdWBFlmQbZhx9-EAmD7vYlV5mMkhJwoXIx70fLtS0dHUPlEdGFEPd9k-L5bRtUyRqdp3eV4jrrKZmQfZ4WjKC2Jy8jEh_kWBRrtR_-uXI1DFtzyn2ZmPQoNRfbEYvr-RfL16Esuwi_20hlASRB2BwJchik4sDeE8emLBSZjWDtN4v-s8j7MFzMbKhg/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> From: regext <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Dmitry Belyavsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM To: John Levine <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt We could update the contact scheme version to indicate the EAI support as it is relevant for the contract mapping only. On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, 18:51 John Levine, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In article <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> you write: > [SAH] Perhaps there’s a case to be made for RFC 6530 being an update to RFC > 5322. I’m going to see if I can run some tests to >confirm it, but I, too, suspect that EPP as-is won’t have any issues with >internationalized email addresses. Urrgh. RFC 6530 is not an update to 5322. Don't go there. I agree there is no great technical problem sending UTF-8 address strings through EPP. I'm getting the impression that what we need is a way for the client to ask the registry whether it can handle EAI addresses so it knows what to accept registrants. I can imagine a variety of ways to do that. R's, John _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1E2O9BAxjfPFRfBkfkdxxMTw4FeUHvpkoq0D8pXADkch3J8zQcnJFteI9-DnviuVEI5t6W5sTnonl8zXd9JKRrx-gGoGyQXdMImvWtBZf9dYNpujyBnEMqxC1Ly9rBkcppwn1Q8waImJkzHzgPSR5W076Bq_Qj1fvERIlfLyfP1t5QgoTwZ2gpmuX85-A2Z_DzpzUdNJ-F5_W-JNHhs7NJcXcs3bEciqsCWn8Pogs9sG9e5TijoAKpJc7gqcV6DlHoJghQ11jLtbMvnQ48zpr3_uROAOzByjqHEoLAyKKmWY/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext> -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
