Stability of valid IDN labels
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Apr 22 23:13:17 CEST 2008
My only interest is as a potential TLD operator, with delegation(s) from
the IANA root subject to contract, or not, or both, and of course, the
emphasis is on "potential", and I've no interest in causing delay for
those with other interests.
Thank you all for your time and courtesy.
Vint Cerf wrote:
> with regard to requirements, I think what is emerging from the IDNAbis
> process has origin less in ICANN than in IETF and Unicode and
> linguistic experts trying to produce a set of rules that will maximize
> utility in DNS of non-Latin scripts while protecting against a number
> of risks perceived by the working group participants. thoughtful
> discussion on this list and within the earlier design team list is the
> source of "requirement" in large measure and I hope that we can
> continue to harvest this as we work towards consensus in the IDNAbis
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> Of course the first thing I did was google for "+unicode +u+1E9F",
>> and observed that it is upper-case, and therefore, in itself, of
>> little inate relevance to the DNS, where the broad rule is "case fold
>> where case exists".
>> It is however, an instance of requirements agency that is outside of
>> the scope of this WG, assuming that this WG's requirements originate
>> from the institutions I mentioned yesterday -- broadly -- ICANN and
>> little else, except perhaps some DNS registry operators as an
>> additional set of authors.
>> I'm glad you're going to get a site administrator to look into the
>> final issue Frank identified, as there is a historic issue with using
>> texts which are only conditionally available. Its been ages since I
>> last spent time on IETF process, but I'm sure someone on this list
>> has the current cite.
>> Mark Davis wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Frank Ellermann
>>> <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> John C Klensin wrote:
>>> > To say this a little differently, such changes in Unicode are
>>> > not made in secret, but involve opportunities for public
>>> > discussion. It is reasonable to assume that the negative
>>> > effects on IDNs of making such changes would be part of the
>>> > relevant discussions.
>>> I'm far from sure how reasonable that is: The introduction of
>>> u+1E9E was discussed in public, but decided by a third party
>>> not interested in its effects on the Internet, let alone IDN.
>>> For those who (perhaps unlike Frank) have not memorized the code
>>> points of all characters, this is the *CAPITAL SHARP S.*
>>> While of course Unicode can't be limited to just characters that
>>> work in IDN, this particular change -- and the ramifications for
>>> security and compatibility -- it was discussed at great length over
>>> the course of many meetings. It was encoded largely at the request
>>> of the German national body.
>>> Moreover, there is little issue that the form occurs in documents,
>>> nor that it is not the preferred capitalization.
>>> The Unicode list is not really public, e.g., it was removed
>>> from Gmane.org later, and it is not indexed by search engines.
>>> This is neither relevant nor public for practical purposes:
>>> I'll ask our administrator, but you can certainly search for
>>> material that is in the Unicode archives. Try:
>>> Disallow: /cgi-bin/ in <http://www.unicode.org/robots.txt>
>>> is about the Web interface to the Unicode list archive among
>>> other things.
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update