Follow-up to Monday's discussion of digits
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Fri Nov 28 15:59:16 CET 2008
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:23:55PM +0300, Raed Al-Fayez wrote:
> - Another point I think we should not give more power to
> - the registries especially for the things that can be
> - handled and solved by the protocol levels in order to
> - ensure the security and stability of the Internet and
> - domain names space.
Unfortunately, that premise is exactly the _opposite_ of the principle
that has been so far underlying the WG's work. My understanding is
that we want to make the protocol as policy-neutral as possible, and
push into policy as much as we can. We have to take that stance in
order to achieve the firs bullet of the charter:
- Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time
(insertion of names into DNS zone files), vs. at resolution time
(looking up those names)
If we are going to make a decision here that depends either on
enforcing consistency across registries, or on centralising in the
protocol what could also be handled by registry policy, or on reducing
confusability, I can see no reason at all why we shouldn't re-open the
question of various obsolte scripts, &c.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list