Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG/Related Meetings in Cartagena and Next Meeting

[Francisco Arias <francisco.arias@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, EPP does not have support for such attribute. Therefore, that
information won't be available to the registry, unless it is using a custom
EPP extension.

__ 
Francisco



On 12/7/10 5:26 PM, "James M Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> If that's true then I think there may be a communication issue.  My
> understanding of all 4 of the models we have put forth is that the
> language or script needs to be identified.  Thus we are expressly
> saying the language tag needs to be included on the registration side.
> 
> In point of fact, the language tag is arguably included insofar as the
> registry is an EPP-based registry that uses EPP.  Thus language
> information is likely in the registry in many cases.
> 
> The problem is, and please correct me if I've got the wrong
> understanding, that the language information is not available in
> Whois, which brings us back to my question below.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Edmon Chung wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> I think the comment regarding language tag pertains whether the
>> registrant
>> should pick a language tag for their contact info.
>> The language tag as data supplied by the registrant.
>> Much like for IDN registrations where a registrant would pick a
>> language
>> tag.  The comment was whether end users who wish to submit
>> internationalized
>> contact info should select a language tag to go with it.  That is a
>> policy
>> aspect I think.
>> Edmon
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-
>>> irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Galvin
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:04 AM
>>> To: Steve Sheng
>>> Cc: James M. Galvin; Rafik Dammak; Julie Hedlund; Ird
>>> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG/Related Meetings in Cartagena
>>> and
>> Next
>>> Meeting
>>> 
>>> 
>>> RFC 5646 defines a syntax language tag, including an IANA registry
>>> for
>>> values.  It does not speak to the issue of how one includes a
>>> language
>>> tag in the Whois, or any service or application that uses it.  My
>>> question is unrelated to this information.
>>> 
>>> Recovering context from my earlier message:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> € Have the WG considered adding a language tag to the contact data?
>>> 
>>>>> This, in fact, is exactly one of the problems.  Whois protocol has
>>> no language tag
>>>>> capabilities. This is why it needs to be replaced.
>>> 
>>> Adding a language tag to the Whois output is not a sufficient
>>> technical solution.  The Whois protocol output is freeform so the
>>> first question is how a client finds this information so it can use
>>> it.  Then there's the question of what it applies to (data, labels,
>>> etc.).  And I can think of almost 12 more technical questions that
>>> come up from the apparently straightforward suggestion to just add a
>>> language tag.
>>> 
>>> This really is a protocol issue and one of the basic reasons that
>>> Whois needs to be replaced.
>>> 
>>> Jim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Steve Sheng wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Rafik, I was informed that there is actually an RFC for it.
>>>> 
>>>> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc5646.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Warm regards,
>>>> Steve
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/5/10 12:19 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Steve Sheng] I think the proposal is to have a language tag as a
>>>> data element, not at the protocol level, so I would envision
>>>> something a data entry like: language/script: Arabic.
>>>> 
>>>> language or script, for example some languages are using Arab
>>>> script, I guess that we may need script tag too?
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>> 
> 
>