Bundling vs Mapping

[Patrik Fältström]

On 25 feb 2009, at 00.26, Mark Davis wrote:

>   1. That is, unless a local mapping is added.
>   2. That means, effectively, that every reasonable implementation  
> will
>   need to add a local mapping so as to not have disgruntled users.
>   3. But there is no standard mapping anymore as part of the protocol.
>   4. That means that different implementations can use different  
> mappings.
>   5. Given no guidance, we know that they will.
>   6. That means we will end up with a very significant  
> interoperability and
>   security problem.

This I agree with of course, but after separating the domain name from  
the mapping from the application specific implementation suggestions,  
the next questions arrive:

1. Does IDNA2008 documents have to be blocked until the rest of the  
"full picture" is ready as documents?
2. Does the IDNA2008 documents include "enough" text about this? if  
not, what should be added where?
3. How much of the mapping can and should be the same regardless of  
the application(s)?
4. Why has not work continued on the pre-i-d that Mark worked on,  
should that work continue?
5. What pieces (ranging from all to none) of the UTC work in this area  
should be adopted by IETF?
6. What mappings (and similar) do applications already do today?

Etc...

    Patrik
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090225/aca93533/attachment.pgp