Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

Dimtry,



I don’t believe there is the need for a new contact XML namespace, but it would be associated with the new XML namespace (urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:eppEAI-1.0) defined in draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai.

--

JG

[cid:image001.png@01D6A0B3.90BB6A40]

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[e-mail]<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[e-mail]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:59 PM
To: James Gould <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt

Dear James,

If we indicate in the EPP greeting/Login support of urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0
for old contact scheme without EAI and urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.1
for a new scheme with EAI, will it be enough?

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:53 PM Gould, James <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dmitry,

The mechanism that we’ve used in the past is signaling support in the EPP greeting and login services.  Support for an EPP extension is signaled per RFC in the EPP greeting and login services.  We signal support for an operation practice via defining an XML namespace that is included in the EPP greeting and login services.  See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03#section-3<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1kbbME8WxKH25Af398m-OdqUFjso557LWijQiFXQJ0UKuX4cZCZzvDbYaHCY2_clcdljSgNx33sKFt3KGtedibBS3rd7Wn-tjukLzyRje6FwtvocFZuU1taYezRymzvBZLrldkbICauhkSsHRwazoFoHJepPRC6Q29CN67WEfGRnRBhURM55BobSdxDlos3bzBjeAVgNZ2oo3W_D3k7qndME5v-P8RlGiMBYYOnHXTBW6lDhznLqy1qBTvRiOl1ikEZMFhPPlvc7CdrjXu9iJcjMbQnUP7KNOmkd3ipkG-p0/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03%23section-3> for signaling support for draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer, and see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03#section-4<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fDC9N8uU6IPT_EF_7uAAVznUD8SeRiQfEspxbZ7K462x3pUcWXANQLl65DhwDm42Tnzst5sWdgJoVVwVaV1nwfEeLIyJ84n7hf0no3KNDmr2FSnfWqoUXwz7CcJKtVHxVeqCPxPrSAtXLVXqMNxyXq43d3XwpQocebl_3CR6r5qfOs6MYXycUvkWQIrUmoVDWKVBZrlAb2X9LGj-xHMMzptz9EHkzj73LblhoBU1TlzhwfEE7NZvB629ZmMF3aDzE-uj8tBvwsCTWyPC2vNVAorS3uKjIAJx0Y5lZgMXKV4/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03%23section-4> for signaling support for draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces.

--

JG

[cid:image002.png@01D6A0B3.90BB6A40]

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[e-mail]

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Itq6Iu9Ce3lRF7_uiaHCucQVya2sg9-ft8Yg6yP0k3-0H1E8iw8Qqmyc31A7wscCr2uY1m-HhwBC5gY9_wQA6GqtaTqqrdWBFlmQbZhx9-EAmD7vYlV5mMkhJwoXIx70fLtS0dHUPlEdGFEPd9k-L5bRtUyRqdp3eV4jrrKZmQfZ4WjKC2Jy8jEh_kWBRrtR_-uXI1DFtzyn2ZmPQoNRfbEYvr-RfL16Esuwi_20hlASRB2BwJchik4sDeE8emLBSZjWDtN4v-s8j7MFzMbKhg/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>

From: regext <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Dmitry Belyavsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM
To: John Levine <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai-01.txt

We could update the contact scheme version to indicate the EAI support as it is relevant for the contract mapping only.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, 18:51 John Levine, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
In article <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> you write:
>   [SAH] Perhaps there’s a case to be made for RFC 6530 being an update to RFC 5322. I’m going to see if I can run some tests to
>confirm it, but I, too, suspect that EPP as-is won’t have any issues with internationalized email addresses.

Urrgh.  RFC 6530 is not an update to 5322.  Don't go there.  I agree there is no
great technical problem sending UTF-8 address strings through EPP.

I'm getting the impression that what we need is a way for the client
to ask the registry whether it can handle EAI addresses so it knows
what to accept registrants.  I can imagine a variety of ways to do that.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1E2O9BAxjfPFRfBkfkdxxMTw4FeUHvpkoq0D8pXADkch3J8zQcnJFteI9-DnviuVEI5t6W5sTnonl8zXd9JKRrx-gGoGyQXdMImvWtBZf9dYNpujyBnEMqxC1Ly9rBkcppwn1Q8waImJkzHzgPSR5W076Bq_Qj1fvERIlfLyfP1t5QgoTwZ2gpmuX85-A2Z_DzpzUdNJ-F5_W-JNHhs7NJcXcs3bEciqsCWn8Pogs9sG9e5TijoAKpJc7gqcV6DlHoJghQ11jLtbMvnQ48zpr3_uROAOzByjqHEoLAyKKmWY/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext>


--
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky