Additional thoughts on TRANSITIONAL

Erik van der Poel erikv at
Fri Dec 4 18:16:02 CET 2009

Yes, that is a kind of flag day. But I was thinking we might be able
to agree not to have a fixed date for that, and change the table at
some point in the future, when there is consensus that it is the right
time (and the right thing to do).


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 08:38:49AM -0800, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>> Well, then maybe it would be better to have a separate value called
>> TRANSITIONAL, but registries must not register labels with
>> TRANSITIONAL characters, and clients must not map them nor look them
>> up. How does that sound?
> Yeah, that was sort of all I was quibbling about.  This is, I think,
> very similar to Mark's original suggestion, only with a lot more
> detail worked out.
> The big disadvantage to it, of course, is that there _is_ a flag day
> in some sense.  It's on the day the rule changes from "no register/no
> lookup" to "register ok/lookup ok".  If people can live with that,
> though, I can.
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list