Katakana Middle Dot again (Was: tables-06b.txt: A.5, A.6, A.9)

[Andrew Sullivan]

I don't have time to reply properly right now, let alone from a decent  
MUA, so apologies in advance. John is quite right: there is _in  
principle_ no way to know what "domain" a given label is "in", because  
at least of cname and dname. Sorry, but the DNS just does not work as  
you seem to assume.

Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com

On 2009-08-07, at 17:38, Elisabeth Blanconil <eblanconil at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Dear John,
> 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?
>> Nope.
>
> 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
> their use.
>
> Best.
>
> Elisabeth Blanconil
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update