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

Francisco Obispo fobispo at isc.org
Fri Jul 18 04:47:37 UTC 2014

Hi Alexander,

Here’s what we do at Uniregistry.

On Apr 24, 2014, at 12:18 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

Option C.

> - 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”?)


> - 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?)

Int - we don’t want to display the ‘loc’ in whois because clients are not expected to support UTF-8

> - 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. free form UTF-8 accepted.

> Feedback appreciated :)
> thanks,
> Alex

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list