Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP

Taras Heichenko <> Fri, 20 November 2020 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFB53A07C4; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:13:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCjYVGHZTHq9; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:13:33 -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 A66F13A07A0; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:13:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1kg4M0-0002Rx-En; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:13:30 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Taras Heichenko <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:13:23 +0200
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-Spam-Score_int: [] -28
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: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:13:35 -0000

> On 20 Nov 2020, at 11:06, Hollenbeck, Scott <> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: regext <> On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 3:47 AM
>> To:
>> 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.

> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list

Taras Heichenko