What rules have been used for the current list of codepoints?

[Martin Duerst]

At 08:12 06/12/17, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>Gerv,
>
>What do you suggest for the labels other than the TLD

TLDs are in many ways very easy: They can be handled on
a one-by-one base, and a full cross-check for spoofing
possibilities can be done. As an example, what looks like
"py" is an obvious candidate for a Cyrillic TLD for Russia,
but it can be rejected on an individual basis because
"py" is already Paraguay. We don't need tables for this
at all.

>and 2LD? Do you
>suggest that the top-level registry adopt and enforce policies at all
>levels, including 3LD, 4LD and so on? And/or do you suggest that the
>user agent enforce some rules at those levels?

Different parts of the world use 2LDs for different purposes.
In Japan, we have .co.jp, .ac.jp, and so on, similar in the
UK. I assume you mean 2LDs in cases such as .com and .org,
i.e. domain names publicly registered.

As for labels lower than that, I guess user agents will
inforce that because it's difficult for them to know in
all cases what levels are officially registered and what
not, but I have to say that I personally don't care if
companyA spoofs itself with a.companyA.com, where the
first 'a' may be both Latin and Cyrillic.

Regards,     Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp