Re: U-labels and draft-obispo-epp-idn-00

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:09 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] U-labels and draft-obispo-epp-idn-00
> 
> 
> On 15 feb 2012, at 00:43, James Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Andrew for including an optional "U-label" element.
> Server policy can dictate how it is used.
> 
> No, this spec should dictate how it is used. It should not be one more
> feature that can differ between epp implementations.
> 
> We should *not* diverge in epp on how we express domain names inside
> the protocol.
> 
> The 'e' is not that much of an 'e'.

Completely correct. I don't have a strong preference for including U-labels or not (5891 suggests that including both is preferred "because it permits further verification of user intent"), but if they are included the syntax and processing should be consistent.

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