Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP

[Taras Heichenko <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

> 
> Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

--
Taras Heichenko
[e-mail]