Changing the values of domain names and the need for mapping

[Vint Cerf]

Paul,

Your proposal to extend 2003 is in effect a mapping proposal since  
mapping is part of the IDNA2003 structure, is it not? If you don't  
want to discuss your proposal at the next meeting that's ok with me  
but I was trying to accommodate it. If you think a re-chartering is  
needed then I would recommend that we complete the current idna2008  
vector and separately consider whether a new effort is needed.

With regard to esszet and final sigma, my sense of the email and face/ 
face discussions is that the most directly affected parties (german  
speakers particularly in .de and .ch were proponents on the esszet  
matter and .gr favored inclusion of final sigma as a pvalid character  
despite earlier mapping behaviors).

vint



Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 4:00 PM -0500 2/16/09, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> As of this writing, it is my understanding that the Esszet and
>> Final Sigma characters are to be treated as protocol-valid
>
> If that truly is the WG consensus, then we have gone against the  
> charter of the WG. Looking over the archives of December, I cannot  
> find where in the consensus calls that decision was clearly made, so  
> I might be wrong about it being WG consensus. We are saying that  
> domain names that currently have one bits-on-the-wire value  will  
> change to a different bits-on-the-wire value after IDNA2008 is  
> finished.
>
>> and
>> that registries (in the most general sense of the word) are
>> prepared to deal with the side-effects of prior registrations
>> following the IDNA2003 guidelines.
>
> This seems like an overstatement. For example, VeriSign has many  
> domain names registered in .com that are encodings of strings that  
> use Esszet. To the best of my knowledge, no one from VeriSign has  
> said on this list or in any other forum that VeriSign is prepared to  
> deal with the very real effects (not "side-effects") of current  
> registrations under the IDNA2003 protocol (not "guidelines"). The  
> same is true for PIR and .org. Further, the one registry that has  
> said it can deal with the effects of the Esszet change has not  
> definitively said how they will do so.
>
> I do not see how such changes, supported by so little of the  
> affected community, can be considered acceptable within the  
> stability wording of the WG charter.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update