From nobody Wed Aug 24 15:38:30 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1012C1522D7; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 04:54:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verisign.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qEX3hHvuWOMQ; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 04:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.verisign.com (mail2.verisign.com [72.13.63.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 687FDC14CE27; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 04:54:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=1652; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1661255644; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=D3EUUwOs/3V72Q3Q4J5TmKKy1E1IG/k/eHuPjHtz7Mc=; b=R9MofuSfSAAJL8SuZtTibYh0Ga22XW/djBnyjMoEhkUbyOBf+iNSe9QO PM8Ypdo3UZxb78D7YZx6a5t73DmyAkF/uQUr+TanNErssJ3LOodatP1Zu xDyYTHfrMGM8v61gmTC1LjIR1NFBRxZdhNzXysYGMTOlo240OwGpJKG6z RvSknfKiO3aP+Wnh1MSae/VUaA3/qdfpNzIE18zwsVrKysl+HuNdscoSq N1n9b7dyTT8GQ0+nL3ESXVTiMdHhWemL7p1oQHGOiVedRCUAT4lVTb4Ih 0LIrOtvIr0hYJ/7ZX/FXzcti5dpBb5CvEhoAxlimY3Y+YUXCwS7RPXtt5 A==; IronPort-Data: A9a23:Ym7iDKtih5wVJ0Xhla6dQ6ydr+fnVPJfMUV32f8akzHdYApBsoF/q tZmKT2DP/bZYTemLtEjbI+woUwAvMSEm9ZiHQVsq3xhFC8X9ZOVVN+UEBz9bniYRiHhoOCLz O1FM4Wdc5pkJpP4jk3wWlQ0hSAkjclkfpKlVKiefHgZqTZMEE8JkQhkl/MynrlmiN24BxLlk d7pqqUzAnf8s9JPGj9SuvnrRC9H5qyo4mtI5AdmP5ingXeF/5UrJMNHTU2OByagKmVkNrbSb /rOyri/4lTY838FYj9yuu+mGqGiaue60Tmm0hK6aYD76vRxjnVaPpIACRYpQRw/ZwOhxIktl YoX5fRcfi9yVkHEsLx1vxBwTXkibfUekFPNCSDXXce7lyUqf5ZwqhnH4Y5f0YAwo45K7W9yG fMwMm49Nhylm7uK2bOFW7Evn8MkMJjMFdZK0p1g5Wmx4fcOa6rlGprsyO8AhXEujcdUBbDXa 4wHcyFpKh/HZnWjOH9OUNRnw7zu3ySkNWEIwL6WjfNfD2z71wx21LzgNtDYcd+iW8hPn12Zq WSA9GP8av0fHIXBkmDYqi3z7gPJtXrJVcUtP+3mz/xFkAW05GUUBR0GWHLu9JFVjWb7AbqzM Xc8+C0uq+0z+VClZtv2XFuzp3vslhQRX9ZVEvES5wSEy66S6AGcbkAcRzBpcNUoqMI9RXox2 zehndzuGDhj5eHNV3+H96yVojX0Mi8QBWMHbDUPCwoI/9elp5s85jrGVMpLEaOpgJvyAz6Y6 zyQpSYiwrQekcBOzai08EDbxj+0vt3ERw9z7wHTdmOo8g0/Y5SqD6Ss4EPHqP1JKIKxT1Sds j4Dgcf2xPoDApydiASMTfkDWraz6J6tMWSMh1JuBbEg+iijvXm5cuh47zx4YU5zLu4FdCPnJ kjJtmtsCIR7NmGsNLBxbpLpUoEx07KmENX+E/rTKNBUZME3ahWc+mdlYkv4M33RrXXAWJoXY f+zGftAx15DYUi75FJan9sg7II= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:SF99BavE/sAtsGrbkXQ65OIf7skDq9V00zEX/kB9WHVpm6uj5q WTdZUgpH3JYVkqOE3I9ervBEDiexzhHPdOiOEs1NyZLWrbUQWTTb1K3M/NzzrtACXi+uMY/r cIScRDIey1KVRhl8717E2bH8ZI+rO62ZHtoevF1X9iQUVRdqd6425CZzqzCEFsWwVcP5Y/Ga ed4sYvnVGdRUg= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,257,1654560000"; d="scan'208";a="16325077" Received: from BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) by BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2375.31; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:54:01 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.153.49]) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.153.49]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:54:01 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "john-ietf@jck.com" , "Gould, James" , "beldmit@gmail.com" , "paf@paftech.se" , "jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org" CC: "art@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org" , "last-call@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" , "i18ndir@ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Last-Call] last call reviews of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12 (and -15) Thread-Index: AQHYtkBwji/feJmpC0CpeMqusHyVbq28BjGAgABaKWA= Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 11:54:01 +0000 Message-ID: <76088629540546bbbeb31d459a0eb0de@verisign.com> References: <4FFD4044-CB4C-46EC-AAAE-B84E6B3AB4B0@verisign.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.170.148.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:38:19 -0700 Subject: Re: [regext] [Last-Call] last call reviews of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12 (and -15) X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 11:54:07 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: last-call On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:27 PM > To: Gould, James ; beldmit@gmail.com; > paf@paftech.se; jgould=3D40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org > Cc: art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.= org; > regext@ietf.org; i18ndir@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Last-Call] last call reviews of draft-ietf-regex= t-epp- > eai-12 (and -15) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not clic= k links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content = is > safe. > > > --On Monday, August 22, 2022 16:01 +0000 "Gould, James" > wrote: > > > John, > > > > How about if we change the approach to use the well-understood > > command-response extension? > > If things were changed to create an extension type that is defined in RFC= 5730 > rather than creating a new type, that would certainly eliminate the need = to > update 5730 (or explain clearly why that was not necessary). > > That, of course, leaves the more substantive SMTPUTF8 issues, particularl= y the > need for a slot for an alternate all-ASCII address. [SAH] A thought: the traditional command-response extension would preserve = the ability to provision an all-ASCII address using the data structures def= ined in RFC 5733. A contact command (for example) could be extend= ed to add support for provisioning an additional SMTPUTF8 address. Would th= at approach address your concern, John? Scott