Re: [regext] Internationalized Email Addresses and EPP

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

> -----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.

Scott