On Mon, Aug 2, 2021, at 12:17, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote: > Let me remind you that the 1st version of the draft proposed an update > to basic schemas to indicate that EAI addresses are valid.
Yes, but as James stated, the flow went towards the direction of placeholders... > I like your proposal about redesigning the client schema, but I'd also > remind that Contact is not the only object having an email attribute. Where do you see one, among RFC 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733? > The proposed solution, with all of its downsides, covers all such > objects. You suggest the solution that will require explicit updating > of all the objects. Yes, as said, not an easy task. Exactly like each time you have technical debt: you decide to just add more to it, or you decide to repay it. Adding more placeholder values is just more technical debt and creating more problems down the line. > I wish that ICANN/Universal Acceptance people would participate in this > discussion. +1, but also noting of course the issue may be more "pressing"/urgent in case of some IDN ccTLDs than gTLDs. -- Patrick Mevzek [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
