I would say yes and no

Yes it is designed into the protocol and in a perfect world that would mean yes ir is covered.

Sometimes the world is not perfect.

We should realize that there is a fast cycle on things being put in place and deployed. 

I agree with Andrew, but would add that I don't think someone would be trying to deliberately break UA if an RDAP implimentation was not solving field data element encoding suddenly.

Notwithstanding what Andrew said about it being potentially included, I think assuming RDAP will fix storage of Unicode for UA may not be correct unless explicitly stated by a given implementation.

Given the expedited pace of implementation that industry is faced with, for many it is unfortunately a resourcing triage... which means teams may focus upon core operations that are required for compliance and will likely apply the most immediate attention them and to other things later.

All hypithetical, but an example might be that If systems that are being updated for RDAP had UA deficiencies (western encoded data field in database might be an example), these may not be being adapted immediately to meet the implementation date.   

It might even prove to place "compliance by deadline" in jeopardy to modify database field structures.   I could see a team, under those circumstances, deferring such a change.

Testing and verification of UA may also not be at the front of the list of priorities.

I think exposing some of these details helps inform the dialog so that we are not letting people mentally tick the box next to "mission accomplished" on UA just because RDAP came along.

Especially when things are happening in expedited timelines.

-Jothan

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 06:49 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Yes. Part of the design criteria for the protocol. If someone can't do that with RDAP they have gone out of their way to break it. 

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.

On March 7, 2019 06:46:19 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi all.
Is the implementation of RDAP UA-compliant? I mean, will it be possible to store data in different scripts?
Thanks for enlighten me on this topic.
Cheers,
Roberto



On Mar 7, 2019 06:49, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Yes. Part of the design criteria for the protocol. If someone can't do that with RDAP they have gone out of their way to break it. 

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.

On March 7, 2019 06:46:19 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi all.
Is the implementation of RDAP UA-compliant? I mean, will it be possible to store data in different scripts?
Thanks for enlighten me on this topic.
Cheers,
Roberto