Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

xt@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward I support Jim’s proposal – the “cardinality of two” option is unnecessarily complex and would require more work to implement on client and server side for little benefit. G. On Thursday, March 2, 2023 a

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

I support Jim’s proposal – the “cardinality of two” option is unnecessarily complex and would require more work to implement on client and server side for little benefit. G. On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:50 AM, Gould, James jgo...@verisign.com wrote: I’ve

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

F8 or ASCII address, I can support option #1. That probably means that we need to think about future work to support multiple email addresses. Scott From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:50 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

future work to support multiple email addresses. Scott From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:50 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

future work to support multiple email addresses. Scott From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:50 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

I agree with James and here is why... First, at least in my operational experience, modifying a data model is much more complex than just software upgrades. Second, these email addresses are not only used for display in RDAP/Whois, sometimes they are used for operational purposes (e.g., as in

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

I also support cardinality of one. Thanks, Jody. From: regext On Behalf Of Rick Wilhelm Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 8:26 AM To: Roger D Carney ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

Agreed… +1 on cardinality of one Thx Rick From: regext on behalf of Roger D Carney Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:10 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

+1 on cardinality of one From: regext on behalf of Dmitry Belyavsky Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:03 AM To: Gould, James Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

Dear colleagues, I also support the cardinality of one. On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:50 PM Gould, James wrote: > I’ve discussed the path forward for draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai with some > working group participates and I have concern of the current path that the > draft is taking with the support

[regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

I’ve discussed the path forward for draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai with some working group participates and I have concern of the current path that the draft is taking with the support for an alternate e-mail address, whether it be either ASCII, SMTPUTF8, or either. There are system and policy