On 27 Feb 2019, at 06:40, Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@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.
I think the 3rd option is the easiest at this point, but I suggest "REDACTED DATA" for the city field, And I believe we should extend that to sp (state/province). For cc I like XX since XA to XZ are user-assigned in ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. Rubens