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

[Gould, James]

Alex,

My feedback is below.

-- 
 
JG
 

 
James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at verisign.com
 
703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com




On 4/24/14, 3:18 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

b) either ³loc² or ³int"

>
>- 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"?)

n/a

>
>- 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?)

n/a

>
>- 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, all UTF-8 characters is supported.

>
>Feedback appreciated :)
>
>thanks,
>Alex