Our meeting consensus was to forbid mapping on registration, require on lookup, and discourage stored M-Labels.<br><br>For unmappable disallowed characters, I think it works fine to have a transition period. But for lookup mapping I don't see any plausible way for a transition period to end. So I think we end up having a permanent, required lookup mapping.<br>
<br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 09:05, Vint Cerf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Q1: Should the proposed mapping on lookup in a revised IDNA2008<br>
protocol specification be a permanent feature of the protocol or<br>
should it have a finite lifetime? Should it be required or optional?<br>
<br>
This question is intended to be independent of the actual mapping that<br>
is done. If the question cannot be answered without having specific<br>
mapping in mind, we should recompose the question accordingly.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Vint Cerf<br>
Google<br>
1818 Library Street, Suite 400<br>
Reston, VA 20190<br>
202-370-5637<br>
<a href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>