> -----Original Message----- > From: Taras Heichenko <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 6:13 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [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 20 Nov 2020, at 11:06, Hollenbeck, Scott > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> -----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. > > I fully agree with Klaus, the proposed extension increases the protocol > complexity, adds a lot of job to the EPP software developers, and what it > gives back? Less work with the RFCs? Do you really think it is a valuable > exchange? And in a new RFC, support of non-ASCII email addresses may be > optional.
Sorry, but an extension is a whole lot less complex than changing the core protocol. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
