Another Transition Plan Proposal

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at
Fri Dec 11 00:47:33 CET 2009

For the time frame I want a deadline.  It isn't easy for me to turn on (or off) support if the time slips.  So I'd rather ask the registrars how long they need, pad it a little, and then stick with it.

Suppose de, at, etc agree on 6 months.  Then after 5 months Google says they need 2 more months.  Then after 7 months, says they just became aware that this impacts them and they need some time.  Then yahoo says that if their competitors are doing it they want to fix it too.

So I'd much rather specify a time 6-12 months and stick to it.

As I said before I think tons of places are going to get hit by the transition.  Many lower level zones don't have infrastructure to bundle.  Users get one name, that's it.

Is the WG going to wait a year for someone to redesign, and another to adopt it?  Catch-22: if we did, maybe they end up waiting until it gets urgent to even start planning.
AFAICR(remember), some individuals noted that the words differ, however the registrars seemed to think bundling was more useful for their use.


Sent from my HTC FUZE™, a Windows Mobile® smartphone from AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at>
Cc: idna-update at <idna-update at>; Vint Cerf <vint at>
Subject: Re: Another Transition Plan Proposal

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.

Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list