Another Transition Plan Proposal

Gervase Markham gerv at
Fri Dec 11 00:26:04 CET 2009

On 10/12/09 15:07, Shawn Steele wrote:
> Phase 1:  I think that in addition to the 5 key areas, that other
> zone operators should be encouraged to consider if this applies to
> them as well.

Sure. My assertion was only that without the support of all five, the 
plan is probably a non-starter. The more the merrier :-)

> Phase 2:  Instead of "reporting" back.  I'd like to see something
> like "6 months after the RFC is published clients start to change
> their implementations."

OK. As long as we have buy-in from them on the amount of time they need. 
Having said that, if we reached 6 months, and the .de registry said "we 
need another month", we wouldn't ship a Firefox making the change.

Perhaps the trick is, instead of saying "once they'd reported back", say 
"unless we hear an official request, with rationale, for more time". 
Reverse the default.

> Phase 3:  I think the registries you've mentioned aren't very
> interested in un-bundling the sharp s, so I don't think the
> conjecture is helpful, and is perhaps misleading.

OK, great. I certainly think unbundling is a bad idea, but my vague 
impression from some of the discussion on this list is that some locales 
would consider it.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list