stelancel at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 16:49:18 CEST 2011
This worries me: "implicit in the decision on the past". In RFC everything
MUST be explicit. (my interest lies in non registered sub-domain names used
to deliver an information to the other end).
I am sorry because I am not really expert in PVALID issues (changes, etc.),
but I understood that PVALID once, PVALID for ever. I realize with this
Draft that this means at character level not at codepoint level. Or am I
What about the applications using hard-coded code points names, or crypted
domain names or subnames based upon an algorythm among PVALID code points
(I understood that ".su" permitted that)..
Another point is that this Draft is precisely to show that IDNA2008 is
stable. Simon and Andrew show that this may not be the case, even when IETF
says it is? How could the IDNS be stable if it uses a non-stable element
2011/4/27 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:28:25AM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote:
> > algorithms for PVALID, etc. Does anyone know whether U+19DA has
> > actually been used in any domain names?
> Short of scanning the entire DNS of the entire Internet (presumably
> including split-brain cases where the name is not visible in the
> public tree), non-evidence of use doesn't show very much. But it
> seems a very unlikely character.
> Implicit in the decision in the past about these sorts of cases was
> that we'd treat them case by case. The reason to do that was that
> some (potential) incompatibilities are more serious than others. IF
> we were changing the rules around (say) the character "0", I'm quite
> sure that the reaction would be different.
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update