[regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09)

[James Galvin <[e-mail]>]

Speaking as a working group participant:

Sorry to be late to this specific discussion but I agree with Arnt and 
don’t believe any changes are necessary to the existing document.

At least among gTLDs, the contact objects are typically not transferred. 
  Combine that with the fact that a registrant has gone to the new 
registrar and entered contact information directly.  Thus, if the 
gaining registrar does not support EAI then the registrant has not 
entered that information and there is no conflict.  In addition, this 
would apply to all information in the contact object so the additional 
email address is not special in this regard.

Since the base EPP does not make this point I don’t feel that we 
should make this point in this document.  It might be an  interesting 
comment to add to an update to EPP since it does apply generally, 
although I’m not convinced of that either; I’m suggesting we talk 
about it then.

Jim


On 21 Nov 2024, at 15:54, Joseph Yee wrote:

> inline
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:29 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 11:15 AM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai 
>>> (was:
>> WGLC:
>>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09)
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Hollenbeck, Scott writes:
>>>> Please note that I have a comment from Joseph Yee that needs to be
>>>> addressed if there's no objection to do so.
>>>
>>> Why does it need to be addressed?
>>>
>>> EPP doesn't even try to tell you that a contact object will be
>> invalidated if the
>>> domain is transferred, or that a contact object is referenced by
>> extension
>>> objects that you can't see because you haven't declared support for 
>>> that
>>> extension. What makes this case worth addressing?
>>
>> [SAH] Give that reasoning, probably nothing. Maybe Joseph can add 
>> more.
>>
>>
> It's a nice-to-have reminder, and as discussed, it's a MAY for 
> registry to
> consider..  After all, this one contains an email address.
>
> -Joseph
>
>
>
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>

> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]