Andy,
We use the unavailable check reason to describe the blocked IDN variant case.
We have the Related Domain Extension
(https://www.verisign.com/assets/epp-sdk/verisign_epp-extension_related-domain_v01.html)
that could be used to manage related domain names (e.g., intra-TLD related
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:57 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
>
> > My rough, rough understanding is that EPP needs extensions for registrars to
> > know if an IDN variant is available, blocked but unallocated to another
> > registrant, or actually available.
>
> [SAH] OK, but that doesn't explain why
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Newton (andy)
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 1:40 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Registration Protocols Extensions (regext)
> WG Interim Meeting: 2024-05-07
>
> Caution: This email originated from
My rough, rough understanding is that EPP needs extensions for
registrars to know if an IDN variant is available, blocked but
unallocated to another registrant, or actually available.
-andy
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 10:25 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From:
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of IESG Secretary
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 11:37 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) WG
> Interim Meeting: 2024-05-07
>
> Caution: This email originated
Hi Maarten,
> On 25 Apr 2024, at 13:10, Maarten Wullink
> wrote:
>>
>> I would encourage you to be explicit in the objectives you're seeking to
>> achieve with this proposal, since "scalability" is insufficient to justify
>> most of what's proposed in your draft.
>
> Improved scalability is
