Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0
tina.dam at icann.org
Thu Oct 14 23:06:56 CEST 2010
Hi John, thanks and yes I agree. The below reference/suggestion from me that we check with the TLD registries, was one aspect of checking the impact and decision between A) or B) would have. Hence, just an idea to get that part of the process and offering to bring it up with TLD registries when/if we speak about IDNA and IDN Guidelines in Cartagena. It was not suggesting it would be the _entire_ process.
I don't know how to go about the rest of the tree/zones...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin at jck.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:41 PM
> To: Tina Dam; Patrik Fältström; idna-update at alvestrand.no work
> Subject: RE: Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0
> --On Thursday, October 14, 2010 13:22 -0700 Tina Dam
> <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
> > Hi Patrick, thanks for this. It was sooner than I expected...
> > In terms of the forward progress, I agree with your
> > recommendation for the specific example. Generally I think in
> > order to choose between the options (accept change or add
> > exception for backward compatibility) I would personally like
> > to hear from registries that have implemented the character
> > and who may be disadvantaged by it's elimination.
> Tina, I know you know this but, just as it is sometimes easy to
> lose sight of the fact that the DNS is not just about "web
> addresses", it is sometimes easy to lose track of the depth and
> extent of the tree. The meaning of "registry" in IDNA2008 (and
> similar terminology in IDNA2003) extends to every zone
> administrator of a zone in the DNS. In principle, the
> administrator of a subdomain somewhere deep in the DNS tree
> could have chosen to utilize one or more of these characters
> without having to discuss that decision with anyone else.
> While I believe that the probability of that having occurred is
> actually very low, any sort of decision process associated with
> "ask the registries" or "hear from the registries" has most of
> the properties of a search for a universal negative: if someone
> comes forward and says "yes, I am using one of those" it gives
> us a lot of information but that absence of such an answer tells
> us almost nothing... and, in this day of restrictions on zone
> transfers, there is no feasible way to walk the entire tree.
> > For this specific case, I am personally unaware of any IDNs
> > with the New Tai Lue script. However, we should probably make
> > some sort of process where the gTLD registries and ccTLD
> > registries are asked to provide relevant input if/when this
> > happens again.
> While I think some mechanism of that sort would be a good idea,
> we also need to remember that, while many people are thinking
> about IDN TLDs in terms of script-homogeneous or
> language-homogeneous trees and FQDNs, there is, in general, no
> plausible way to enforce such requirements. Even if one could
> do that for IDN TLDs and their subtrees, it is not possible for
> subtrees of existing, non-IDN, TLDs.
More information about the Idna-update