[gtld-tech] EPDP recommendations and EPP

[Gould, James]

Gavin,

I ran across this issue for the relaxed validation that came out of the thick policy.  Since we implement full schema validation and we provide an EPP SDK that does the same, I had to create a modified XML schema that can be used on server side and client side.  

Can someone from the EPDP explain why the technical contact will not follow the EPP RFC?  A contact is created without a type in EPP, so having different contact collection requirements by type does not work. 

It would be much easier for everyone if the required fields for all contact types matched the required fields of the EPP RFC; otherwise we will run into policy that is overriding RFC compliance issues and implementation problems for both the client and the server.  

We could adjust what fields are displayed by type in RDAP instead of in EPP.  Keep the minimum fields collected consistent and compliant with the RFC and adjust what fields that are returned in the RDAP responses.

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 27, 2019, at 4:41 AM, Gavin Brown <gavin.brown at centralnic.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The EPDP final report says that, if a domain name has a technical
> contact (whose information is different from the registrant's), the only
> data that registrars should send to registries are the technical
> contact's name, email address, and phone number (if any).
> 
> Assuming that technical contacts should still be created and managed as
> RFC 5733 contact objects, and also assuming that this recommendation is
> adopted without change, it poses a challenge, because the RFC requires
> all contact objects to have <city> and <cc> elements.
> 
> I've been thinking about how this could be resolved, here are some ideas
> (in descending order of nastiness):
> 
> * write a new RFC which updates RFC 5733 to make the <city> and <cc>
> elements optional
> 
> * write a new EPP extension which makes the technical contact's name,
> email address, and phone number directly attributes of the the domain
> name rather than a contact object
> 
> * define a "convention" that allows the <city> and <cc> elements to
> contain placeholder values, such as: <city>-</city> and <cc>XX</cc>
> which pose no data protection issues.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Gavin Brown
> Chief Technology Officer
> CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
> Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
> for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
> https://www.centralnic.com/
> +44.7548243029
> 
> CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
> company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
> EC2R 6AR.
> 
> 
> 
>