Dear WG,

This WGLC will end tonight, and so far we only have 2 explicit voices of 
support.
This is a bit low to declare consensus. Could more people voice their support?
Scott, can you confirm that the changes in version 05 address your initial 
concerns?

- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392






> Op 19 dec. 2021, om 19:11 heeft Dmitry Belyavsky <beld...@gmail.com> het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 2:53 PM Taras Heichenko <ta...@academ.kiev.ua 
> <mailto:ta...@academ.kiev.ua>> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 15 Dec 2021, at 16:14, Dmitry Belyavsky <beld...@gmail.com 
> > <mailto:beld...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Taras.
> 
> Dear Dmitry
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:13 PM Taras Heichenko <ta...@academ.kiev.ua 
> > <mailto:ta...@academ.kiev.ua>> wrote:
> > The comment is in body.
> > 
> > > On 13 Dec 2021, at 15:15, Hollenbeck, Scott 
> > > <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org 
> > > <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Gould, James <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org 
> > >> <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:59 AM
> > >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com 
> > >> <mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>>;
> > >> ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org> 
> > >> <i...@antoin.nl <mailto:i...@antoin.nl>>; regext@ietf.org 
> > >> <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-
> > >> eai-04
> > >> 
> > >> 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.
> > >> 
> > >> Scott,
> > >> 
> > >> Thanks for the review and feedback.  I provide responses to your feedback
> > >> embedded below.
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> 
> > >> JG
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> James Gould
> > >> Fellow Engineer
> > >> jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-
> > >> B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>
> > >> 
> > >> 703-948-3271
> > >> 12061 Bluemont Way
> > >> Reston, VA 20190
> > >> 
> > >> Verisign.com <http://secure- <http://secure-/>
> > >> web.cisco.com/1bUEhaRz5CoSQPd4colm8eTGE5D6zPQvtrYPAzQf9pUSXnqD 
> > >> <http://web.cisco.com/1bUEhaRz5CoSQPd4colm8eTGE5D6zPQvtrYPAzQf9pUSXnqD>
> > >> Nq7mmnlZ8At92joPzY5DkJdQiiPe1mlyvgzDAdDz_shcqHzSugkfXA2qX9z7aQp0
> > >> 6ld-
> > >> LnwMzxo2VGkwqFH5gLrI7qSYQlgj4Unll4AIUd6ALSZ38i2kjYqgA0AnBBjaJEVg7
> > >> yUIN-
> > >> P8bpFGxQgN__tWour_sxUBBx2vUcVpmrR7SUG6UsUo5U3gb_YbWCYcRn8b
> > >> 4Rl06BQIL8B8k/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>
> > >> 
> > >> On 12/6/21, 9:18 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-
> > >> boun...@ietf.org <mailto:boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 
> > >> shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org 
> > >> <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >>    A few questions/comments:
> > >> 
> > >>    Section 6: We need to provide the rationale for that SHOULD 
> > >> (Registries
> > >> SHOULD validate the domain names in the provided email addresses). What
> > >> does "validate" mean? For syntax? For reachability?
> > >> 
> > >> JG - This is associated with validating the syntax.  The goal is to 
> > >> ensure 
> > >> that
> > >> the domain name, whether an ASCII or IDN domain name is a syntactic valid
> > >> domain name the may be reachable.  Would it help to modify this to read
> > >> "Registries SHOULD validate the syntax of the domain names in the 
> > >> provided
> > >> email addresses so they may be reachable."?
> > > 
> > > [SAH] Syntax validity is no guarantee of reachability. The only way to 
> > > confirm 
> > > that an email address "works" is to send email to that address and 
> > > confirm 
> > > that it's delivered. I don't think we want to suggest that registries 
> > > should 
> > > start sending out email delivery tests, so maybe something like this 
> > > instead:
> > > 
> > > " Registries SHOULD ensure that the provided email addresses are 
> > > syntactically 
> > > valid to reduce the risk of future usability errors."
> > 
> > The check of existing of the domain (MX or at least A/AAAA record) from the
> > email address may be added. I am not sure that it should be there but it 
> > also
> > raises the probability that the email address is valid.
> > 
> > Personally I don't think it is feasible to reject the contact 
> > registration/change if these records don't exist.
> > And anyway, it's out of scope for this document.
> 
> I just wanted to say that there are different ways to check the validity of 
> an email address.
> If some registry does such a check will it be contrary to the RFC? May we 
> need a phrase that
> allows wider Interpretation?
> 
> I don't see it will be contrary, and so I don't think we need to specify this 
> in this document.
> BTW, I've already removed the phrases about extra email limitations.
> 
> 
> >  
> > 
> > > 
> > >>    Section 7: What's significant about "eai-0.3"? The "0.3" part doesn't 
> > >> track to
> > >> the current version of the draft; perhaps "1.0" would be better now. See 
> > >> also
> > >> Section 5.2.
> > >> 
> > >> JG - Yes, the namespace will be changed to "eai-1.0" once it passes WGLC
> > >> similar to what has happened in past EPP extensions with pointed
> > >> namespaces.
> > > 
> > > [SAH] OK.
> > > 
> > >>    Section 8: It might be helpful to add more text to explain why 
> > >> "Registries
> > >> MAY apply extra limitation to the email address syntax". Why might they
> > >> want to do that? It seems a little unusual to say that they MAY do 
> > >> something,
> > >> but in the next sentence say, "These limitations are out of scope of this
> > >> document".
> > >> 
> > >> JG - Agreed, this does not look to add value.  Do you believe the
> > >> Implementation Considerations section should be removed, since the
> > >> contents really don't provide any material considerations?
> > > 
> > > [SAH] Yes, that's probably a good idea.
> > > 
> > > Scott
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > regext mailing list
> > > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext 
> > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
> > 
> > --
> > Taras Heichenko
> > ta...@academ.kiev.ua <mailto:ta...@academ.kiev.ua>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > regext mailing list
> > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext 
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
> > _______________________________________________
> > regext mailing list
> > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext 
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
> 
> --
> Taras Heichenko
> ta...@academ.kiev.ua <mailto:ta...@academ.kiev.ua>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to