> -----Original Message----- > From: regext <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 3:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP > > 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. > > On 19.11.20 19:14, Gould, James wrote: > > Klaus, > > > > The EAI support goes beyond RFC 5733 and is a perfect example of the use > of the extensibility built into EPP. Revising the RFCs and EPP extensions > that > use email addresses for EAI with new XML namespaces and potentially other > changes is much more impactful than creating an EPP extension that > specifically addresses the issue with applicability across any EPP object. I > was > involved with revising RFC 4310 to RFC 5910, which was needed to address > significant implementation issues with RFC 4310, so I see it as a different > use > case. The intent is to make the EPP extension as lightweight as possible, to > apply across multiple EPP objects, and to include an appropriate level of > signaling (e.g., session-level, object-level, element-level). Any feedback is > welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Hi James, > > I chose DNSSEC as an example as I know that you took the major part in > writing the update. At the very end, it is a matter of taste, and one cannot > argue about. So I respect your position. > > As you might know, my company is developing software both for the registry > side (our TANGO software) and for the registrar side (for customers and our > own purpose). And for the latter, dealing with all the slightly different > implementations of the EPP, within the limits of the specifications and > beyond, and dealing with the flood of extensions, including different > versions of them, is really anything but fun. > > As I understand it, the original idea of EPP was to have a common protocol > for all registries, and it "failed by the wayside" (hopefully the right > idiom). It is > not about blaming anyone for this, maybe the idea was just too ambitious. So > IMHO with every proposed change to the EPP ecosystem one should ask > oneself whether it increases or decreases the overall complexity and the > need for case differentiation, specifically in the long run. I do not remember > who said this, but there is a proverb which goes like the following: If you > design a protocol, don't ask what you can add to it, but what you can remove > from it. While this is likely idealistic, I'll try to keep this in my mind. > > Coming back to the issue, I see internationalized e-mail addresses coming to > stay, like IPv6 did and IDN. So make it an integral part of the protocol, not > an > optional one, in the long run. But hey, that's only my taste.
Please keep in mind that they're currently an OPTIONAL SMTP extension. I think that would need to change before they become a MUST for EPP. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
