Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP

Klaus Malorny <> Thu, 19 November 2020 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC2C3A0A26 for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AI5UjoakMdBl for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:20:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 305343A0A86 for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CcNfg33GFz4v6y; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:20:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:25::1b] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:25::1b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FC071001; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:20:43 +0100 (MEZ)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:20:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/85.0a1
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <>
From: Klaus Malorny <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Rspamd-Server: v1117
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CcNfg33GFz4v6y
Authentication-Results:; none
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:, country:DE]; LOCAL_WL_IP(0.00)[]
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:20:48 -0000

Hi Scott et al.,

sorry for proposing the following so late in the discussion. Due to 
other duties, my visits to the list were less frequent in the recent 
time. Looking at the two options - update of RFC 5733 or an extension -, 
I probably would tend to the first option, but I understand the problems 
with it.

What I regard as suboptimal in respect to the proposed EPP extension [1] 
is the big effort for the little issue (RFC-wise and 
implementation-wise), and also using this dummy placeholder [EAI-DUMMY] 
in the original <email> XML element (while I know that this has been 
done before). For a non-supporting registrar the latter is probably 
similarly confusing as an updated RFC 5733. Well, you could argue that 
the registry can distinguish supporting and non-supporting clients upon 
extensions specified at the login and behave differently. And here comes 
my proposal:

As the original email XML element could transport the internationalized 
e-mail address XML schema-wise, as mentioned before, why not reduce the 
whole extension to a single extension URI without any real EPP extension 
in the <extension> section? No schema, no extra data. The presence in 
the login would simply indicate: "yes, I can deal with internationalized 
e-mail addresses in the <email> element in the contact object", like a 
flag. Well, I know that would be a novel way of using extensions, but it 
would reduce the implementation effort a lot on the other hand.