Re: [ire] EBERO and host attributes

Rubens Kuhl <> Thu, 17 October 2013 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38F011E8180 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCh7JjcBGSu4 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABA111E8242 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F95920801C7 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:01:06 -0300 (BRT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
From: Rubens Kuhl <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:01:06 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Subject: Re: [ire] EBERO and host attributes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:01:25 -0000

> yes, I understood this so far, but this does not really answer my question. Maybe I made my point not clear enough. Just as a background information, I ask these questions not because we want to generate CSV format, but we need to read this (in the context of EBERO). So from my understanding, it would be valid for a registry regarding the -05 version of the document to omit the "fPostalType" field at all (since it is not "required") and include two sets of fields, if it meets its needs, for example, if both versions are mandatory. This could look like the following (modified example from the specs):

Klaus question suggested me another point that I'm curious about: are all EBEROs providing capability for doing emergency failover of registries running host attributes instead of host records ? Although host records are the most usual solution among gTLD registries, not all new gTLD registries will use host records. As a matter of fact I know of at least 5 TLDs running on host attributes, could be more among the 1345 new gTLDs.