[sorry to be late with my comment; traveling]
Not objecting to the general direction of the discussion, and in
particular Patrick's points about multiple registrations and
transferability from a registrant's purpose, but one comment below.
On 2022-08-18 14:59, John C Klensin wrote:
James,
Replying to this note rather that several of the others because
it most clearly identifies what is being done. I am copying, I
hope, the relevant review teams.
There are, I believe, three separate but closely-related issues
here:
(1) The document, through the -14 draft, contained some language
about an "extra" all-ASCII address when an SMTPUTF8 address was
supplied. It failed to indicate how that was to be transmitted,
what function it served, where it might appear in data
structures, etc. You now propose to solve that problem by
eliminating the discussion of such addresses, presumably because
it is strictly a registrar <-> registrant issues. That would
be fine, except...
(2) Whether we like it or not, when non-ASCII email addresses,
especially ones using scripts very different from European and
other so-called GLC-related one are used in arbitrary ways, they
don't work smoothly and globally. They are fine for, e.g.,
ccTLDs where communications, as well as domain name labels are
confined to a script or two and known providers, but not for
generalized communications or registries handling arbitrary
scripts. If the purpose of this protocol is ultimately to
populate registry databases -- databases whose contents are
expected to provide reliable contact and identify information
for registrants even if that information is only accessible
under court order or the equivalent -- then all-ASCII
alternative addresses are a necessity.
If it comes to court orders, then please note that courts and lawyers
and the like are perfectly able to deal with issues with foreign
scripts. (It may take some more time (when it comes to courts) and money
(when it comes to lawyers).)
It's always possible to pay somebody for translation/transcription.
Recently, software such as Google translate may work extremely well in
most cases. It certainly did very recently when I tried for my own
Japanese address. Also, if courts or lawyers need to contact somebody by
EAI email address, they may set up EAI-capable software or ask somebody
to do that for them or send the necessary messages for them. But most
probably, they will chose to use snail mail, because that's a mode of
communication that's more established in legal circles.
Regards, Martin.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
