Re: Protocol, not policy (was: Mississippi Hißes)

John C Klensin klensin at
Mon Dec 14 17:30:42 CET 2009

--On Monday, December 14, 2009 09:54 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:10:56AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>> That is the obvious consequence of the above... and much more
>> nearly aligned with how trademark law actually works.
> And anyway, it doesn't _matter_ how trademark law actually
> works, or any other such thing.  We already decided, just by
> chartering the WG, that the protocol was going to be
> permissive.  There's no technical reason at all that these
> controversial characters not be included _in the protocol_,
> even if by policy they're never used anywhere.  This is
> exactly the debate we had, for instance, about cuneiform.
> There was an argument, "But nobody's ever going to use these,"
> and we agreed that that was not the test we were applying.  We
> also agreed that actually, probably for every zone ever likely
> to be instantiated, the characters ought to be denied by
> registry policy.  That's a completely other matter, and we had
> best not conflate policy and protocol.

Yes, exactly.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list