On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:49 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen <a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote: > > Hi, > > > If we’re going to stand firm on the current working group consensus, > > then I believe the question to be answered is why EPP is special and > > shouldn’t be required to align with accepted practice? > > What's accepted practice? > > We have phone numbers, postal addresses and email addresses in whois. All > are known to be unreliable, only mostly work AIUI, and that's accepted.
IMHO, it's more nuanced than that. Text-capable phones and all-ASCII email addresses can be verified via automated processes, and there are some regular processes in both the INR and DNR spaces to periodically re-verify them. EAI sorta breaks that model in that an SMTPUTF8 address can work for Alice but not for Bob. I think requiring the collection of 2 email addresses impinges on policy (and is unworkable in many of today's registries). But I think Jim has a point. Are we painting ourselves into a corner? What's to stop us from being here 3 years from now because a policy body is pointing at RFC 6530 and saying "it says to have an ASCII alternative"* ? Instead of "MUST have ASCII with SMTPUTF8" or "MUST have either ASCII or SMTPUTF8", maybe this should be more flexible and allow for both an ASCII and SMTPUTF8 address so long as at least one is required and they are clearly discernible as to what they are. -andy * or any other reason a policy body may decide both are required. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
