Dear Patrick, On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:40 PM Patrick Mevzek <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > RFC 8543 is not in this list but defines an Organization mapping with email attribute. > 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 understand your reasons, but not sure it's exactly the case. > > > 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. > The ccTLDs are less limited in their practice and can provide their own schemas and even protocols. -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
