Bundling of Domain Names and DNAME
vint at google.com
Fri Dec 4 14:36:50 CET 2009
extensions of DNS in the XNAME direction would require creation of a
new WG for this purpose.
I menion this only to make sure no one is expecting the IDNABIS
working group to undertake the idea.
On Dec 4, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Vaggelis Segredakis wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> Actually it does not matter whether the final sigma is PVALID or not,
> although I believe that it will be since both the .gr Registry and .cy
> Registry have asked for it.
> We have the same issue with the accent mark "tonos". Almost each
> word in
> Greek has this accent mark in small letters but if you put it in
> letters the mark is omitted, creating two different xn-- Punycode
> translations for each word used as a domain name.
> We Bundle domain names already because of this "tonos" and we face
> bundling issue since 2005 but we had put our hopes on the IDNA
> revision for
> a better solution. Since this is not possible, we need the XNAME
> regardless of the final sigma in IDNA2008 situation.
> Kind Regards,
> Vaggelis Segredakis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik van der Poel [mailto:erikv at google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:59 PM
> To: Vaggelis Segredakis
> Cc: namedroppers at ops.ietf.org; Andrew Sullivan; Olafur Gudmundsson;
> Cerf; Sotiris Panaretou; idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Bundling of Domain Names and DNAME
> Vaggelis, thank you for raising this issue on the namedroppers list.
> Namedroppers, I would like to clarify one item below.
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Vaggelis Segredakis <segred at ics.forth.gr
>> Recently, as a member of the discussion of the IDNABIS WG I tried
>> to help
>> resolving these issues by explaining them to that group. However that
>> is not free to completely re-design the IDNA protocol to something
>> rather with small steps to reform it to something with fewer issues.
>> Unfortunately, on this process, one of the changes that are
>> to even more names that have to be bundled together for each
>> This makes it even more significant to break this chain of cost for
> The IDNAbis WG drafts have not been published as RFCs yet. Currently,
> the drafts make Final Sigma (Unicode U+03C2) PVALID, but this issue is
> currently being discussed in the WG.
More information about the Idna-update