Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taras Heichenko <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 6:13 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
>
>
> > On 20 Nov 2020, at 11:06, Hollenbeck, Scott
> <shollenbeck=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
> >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 3:47 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses
> >> and EPP
> >>
> >> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
> >> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> >> know the content is safe.
> >>
> >> On 19.11.20 19:14, Gould, James wrote:
> >>> Klaus,
> >>>
> >>> The EAI support goes beyond RFC 5733 and is a perfect example of the
> >>> use
> >> of the extensibility built into EPP.  Revising the RFCs and EPP
> >> extensions that use email addresses for EAI with new XML namespaces
> >> and potentially other changes is much more impactful than creating an
> >> EPP extension that specifically addresses the issue with
> >> applicability across any EPP object.  I was involved with revising
> >> RFC 4310 to RFC 5910, which was needed to address significant
> >> implementation issues with RFC 4310, so I see it as a different use
> >> case.  The intent is to make the EPP extension as lightweight as
> >> possible, to apply across multiple EPP objects, and to include an
> >> appropriate level of signaling (e.g., session-level, object-level, element-
> level).  Any feedback is welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> I chose DNSSEC as an example as I know that you took the major part
> >> in writing the update. At the very end, it is a matter of taste, and
> >> one cannot argue about. So I respect your position.
> >>
> >> As you might know, my company is developing software both for the
> >> registry side (our TANGO software) and for the registrar side (for
> >> customers and our own purpose). And for the latter, dealing with all
> >> the slightly different implementations of the EPP, within the limits
> >> of the specifications and beyond, and dealing with the flood of
> >> extensions, including different versions of them, is really anything but
> fun.
> >>
> >> As I understand it, the original idea of EPP was to have a common
> >> protocol for all registries, and it "failed by the wayside"
> >> (hopefully the right idiom). It is not about blaming anyone for this,
> >> maybe the idea was just too ambitious. So IMHO with every proposed
> >> change to the EPP ecosystem one should ask oneself whether it
> >> increases or decreases the overall complexity and the need for case
> >> differentiation, specifically in the long run. I do not remember who
> >> said this, but there is a proverb which goes like the following: If
> >> you design a protocol, don't ask what you can add to it, but what you can
> remove from it. While this is likely idealistic, I'll try to keep this in my mind.
> >>
> >> Coming back to the issue, I see internationalized e-mail addresses
> >> coming to stay, like IPv6 did and IDN. So make it an integral part of
> >> the protocol, not an optional one, in the long run. But hey, that's only my
> taste.
> >
> > Please keep in mind that they're currently an OPTIONAL SMTP extension. I
> think that would need to change before they become a MUST for EPP.
>
> I fully agree with Klaus, the proposed extension increases the protocol
> complexity, adds a lot of job to the EPP software developers, and what it
> gives back? Less work with the RFCs? Do you really think it is a valuable
> exchange? And in a new RFC, support of non-ASCII email addresses may be
> optional.

Sorry, but an extension is a whole lot less complex than changing the core protocol.

Scott