Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG/Related Meetings in Cartagena and Next Meeting
- To: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG/Related Meetings in Cartagena and Next Meeting
- From: "James M. Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:54:54 -0500
Yes, thanks for the clarification. What I should have said is that
the XML itself does indicate this information. Thus, it is possible
to carry this forward. Of course, it would be best if the XML was set
up correctly by the registrar, too. Even better would be to make it
an integral attribute of each element.
With this clarification my comment is still relevant.
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Francisco Arias wrote:
Actually, EPP does not have support for such attribute. Therefore,
information won't be available to the registry, unless it is using a
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
In point of fact, the language tag is arguably included insofar as
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.
On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Edmon Chung wrote:
I think the comment regarding language tag pertains whether the
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
tag. The comment was whether end users who wish to submit
contact info should select a language tag to go with it. That is a
aspect I think.
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
RFC 5646 defines a syntax language tag, including an IANA registry
values. It does not speak to the issue of how one includes a
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
This, in fact, is exactly one of the problems. Whois protocol
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
This really is a protocol issue and one of the basic reasons that
Whois needs to be replaced.
On Dec 5, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Steve Sheng wrote:
Hi Rafik, I was informed that there is actually an RFC for it.
On 12/5/10 12:19 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
[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?