Katakana Middle Dot again (Was: tables-06b.txt: A.5, A.6, A.9)
eblanconil at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 23:38:41 CEST 2009
I do not understand some of your remarks.
2009/8/7 John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>:
> --On Friday, August 07, 2009 22:13 +0200 Elisabeth Blanconil
> Except that a "TLD table inheritance system" is impossible in a
> DNS in which it is not, in the general case, possible to tell
> which TLD a label is actually part of and in which a given node
> can be effectively a subtree of multiple trees.
I am afraid "impossible" only means that some R&D is to be carried.
Hence my allusion to RFC 3869.
>> Was it not at a time a proposition by John Klensin?
I refered to http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-klensin-idn-tld-00.txt
Sorry, if I did not understand the underlying idea. If there are
tables to translate TLDs, it means that TLDs are identified.
>> Ooops! This would have been a problem for "internationalized"
>> money making gTLDs ICANN wants to sell.
> No, actually, some of the "Rich people" who want those domains
> would undoubtedly like the freedom to do whatever they like
> even to use character coding systems other than Unicode. So you
> need a different conspiracy theory and/or source of innuendo.
I am afraid you misuderstand the commercial point here. Coca-Cola does
not want to fool around with ".coke". They want something stable and
unique. TM protection is not in freedom, but in enforced rules. The
same for .com.
Freedom is great for IDN TLDs, not for global TLDs.
> 3869 doesn't discuss "development priority". It discusses
> relatively long-term research priorities.
It intends to suggest that a broad range of ongoing research is
needed, and to propose some candidate topics. IDNA is not one however
new namespaces are considered.
> If you would like to
> put IDNs into that category and accept the five or ten year wait
> it would imply, I'm sure I can find people who would be
> sympathetic to that idea. But I'm not one of them and I suspect
> that few participants in the WG are either.
IDNs were introduced on the Internet in 1998.
>> IMHO the
>> real issue is to make sure in the final wording that Class,
>> TLD, presentation, or Zone related character restrictions or
>> exceptions can be documented without contradicting the
>> proposed text - in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
> I wish I had a better idea what you are talking about and
> whether it was relevant to the WG.
I only mean that zone managers will have to deal with the final texts.
And that we have to make sure no one can use these texts to insert
hidden MUSTs, for example in the way to implement them or to contract
More information about the Idna-update