[gtld-tech] Handling of "loc" and "int" contacts

[Mike O'Connell]

Hi Alex,

On 24 Apr 2014, at 9:18 AM, Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at> wrote:

> All,
> 
> We're currently evaluating the options regarding the "int" and "loc" postalInfo elements of the EPP contact mapping. Currently, we use the "int" type exclusively, but looking at the recent developtments in the "IRD" area (http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ird-requirements), we're looking into the options to move forward with allowing "loc" postalInfo types as well.
> 
> I'm trying to grasp a "sense of the room" with regards to the following questions, and would appreciate feedback:
> 
> - For registries that implement "loc" postalInfo, which of the options do you support?
>    a) just "loc"
>    b) either "loc" or "int"
>    c) "int" required, "loc" optional
>    d) "loc" required, "int" optional

Either "loc" or "int" the other is optional

> - For registries that allow both "loc" and "int", do you require any connection between the two postalInfo data sets (for example, "identical cc", or "identical pc"?)

No

> - For registries that allow both "loc" and "int", which of the two are you displaying in WHOIS? Are you trying to serve "different views" depending on user location or (in the case of web whois) user agent information (eg. "accept-language" header?)

"loc" falling back to "int" - besides that, nothing fancy

> - Do you limit the text contents of "loc" fields to a certain sensible subset of UTF-8, for example to the set of scripts that are also the basis for the registry's IDN tables?

No

Kind regards,

Mike O'Connell
ZACR EPP Administrator
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20140425/19abd1b1/smime.p7s>