Re: Perhaps out of scope, but valuable: IDN Codepoint

Gavin Brown <[email protected]> 2011-05-31 12:54
> > [snip]
> > Is this obtuse to our focus?
> 
> I don't think it has any relevance to the LaunchPhase extension.
 
Agreed, not related strictly to launchphase, but since we are on the
provreg mailing-list the question is indeed a valid one for EPP.

[..]

> Having said that, an EPP extension that extended the semantics of
> <check> might be useful - something like this:
> 
>   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
>   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
>     <command>
>       <check>
>         <domain:check xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
>           <domain:name>xn--eqrt2g.xn--fiqs8s</domain:name>
>         </domain:check>
>       </check>
>     </command>
>     <extension>
>       <validate:check xmlns="urn:centralnic:params:xml:ns:validate-1.0">
>         <validate:language>zh</validate:language>
>       </validate:check>
>     </extension>
>   </epp>
> 
> We implemented a function in our HTTP Toolkit [1] to do something very
> similar.

There are *a lot* of registry extensions (each doing it its own way)
covering this case.

I count at least 4 of them in my client EPP implementation.

In my previous draft on EPP experiences, consolidating the way IDNs
are handled was a specific point worth working on in my view, 
since one could imagine a not
too distant future where most (or even all) of the TLDs will do IDNs.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg