Changing the values of domain names and the need for mapping

[Paul Hoffman]

At 5:57 PM +0100 2/20/09, Cary Karp wrote:
> > The main question for this group is what those actions are. Some
>> actions would cause lack of interoperability with current names,
>> others would cause new requirements on current domain name owners,
>> and others would be just fine. Without knowing what these registries
>> plan, this WG cannot decide the stability effects of our decisions
>> here.
>
>Have I really understood this correctly? 

No.

>In order for us to be able to
>articulate constraints that the registries will need to implement, the
>registries first need to tell us how they intend to implement those
>constraints. ??

We are proposing changes that will change the DNS operations of registries and registrants. We can

a) demand they operate in one particular fashion

b) list some acceptable operational changes (and possibly some unacceptable ones as well)

c) let them guess what they should do

Right now, we are at (c).

In the IETF, making protocol changes that affect operations of something as valuable as the DNS and not giving any operational advice is rare. If we want to do either (a) or (b), we either need to come up with the operational changes ourselves or hear from the affected parties about what they are thinking. I believe the latter is better.

> > Well, we can take this discussion to the DNSOP WG, but I think this
>> list is certainly more appropriate. The operational affects of our
>> decisions is indeed something we need to consider, so it is
>> reasonable to expect details of operational plans to appear here.
>
>The largest part of those plans involve marketing and client relations
>issues that cannot possibly be of concern here.

We fully disagree here. The largest part of the plans is how to operationally handle the mapping / bundling / binding of the names.

>Any time a new
>character is made available for registration, a registry that decides
>to support it is going to need to deal (often via registrars) with
>people who would have preferred to include it in names they had
>previously registered, and who are now concerned about somebody else
>getting the form initially desired.

That may be true, but it is not what we are talking about. We are talking about how, operationally, a registry can give a new name to a registrant that already registered a previous name, and how, operationally, that registrant will have to handle two names that are supposed to act in an identical fashion.

If you think this is really just about marketing, maybe we should take this discussion to the DNSOP WG.

>How on earth can we know that nothing is ever going to become available
>in that process that will trigger issues such as those presently
>attaching to the Eszett and the final form sigma?

See my proposal for IDNAv2 (the straight upgrade to IDNA2003). It explicitly prohibits this kind of "sorry that you trusted us on stability the last time" change.