Dear colleagues, I also support the cardinality of one.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:50 PM Gould, James <jgould= 40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I’ve discussed the path forward for draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai with some > working group participates and I have concern of the current path that the > draft is taking with the support for an alternate e-mail address, whether > it be either ASCII, SMTPUTF8, or either. There are system and policy > impacts associated with the requirement to collect and transmit an > additional e-mail address across EPP RFCs (e.g., RFC 5733, RFC 7848, RFC > 8543), where the end goal of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai was to support the > use of SMTPUTF8 e-mail values with the appropriate signaling by the server > and client. I realize that the term “cardinality” was not popular with > some, but the inclusion of an alternative e-mail across all EPP extensions > that include an e-mail address does make a crosscutting cardinality change > from one to two. The registry needs to support either ASCII or SMTPUTF8 > addresses to enable the registrars, which have the relationship with the > registrant, to make the decision what form of e-mail to accept. In > hindsight, I believe the “Change of Cardinality to One or Two (ASCII or > SMTPUTF8)” recommendation from the IETF-115 REGEXT meeting that was > incorporated into draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-17 is the wrong option. We > should keep the cardinality of one to provide the needed support for > SMTPUTF8 in the registry for the registrars to make the decision what to > collect and pass to the registry. I provide the options below for > consideration by the working group: > > 1. Cardinality of One – The approach taken in > draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-16, where the server (registry) supports either > SMTPUTF8 or ASCII addresses for a decision by the client (registrar). > 2. Cardinality of Two – The approach taken in > draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-17, where the server (registry) supports an > alternative email element during a transition period that requires one > email element to be ASCII. There are two sub-options based on the recent > discussion: > 1. Alternative Email can be ASCII or SMTPUTF8 > 2. Alternative Email is only ASCII > > My preference is Cardinality of One that would roll back to > draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-16. Please respond to the mailing list with your > preference or any other options that should be considered. > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > > > JG > > > > > > *James Gould *Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
