UTC Agenda Item: IDNA proposal

Yangwoo Ko newcat at icu.ac.kr
Thu Nov 23 05:46:43 CET 2006

Sam Vilain wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>> The reason that most of the Indic scripts have been
>> _temporarily_ excluded is that the Indian Government and several
>> collections of the right sort of linguists are examining this
>> work and, unlike some of the generalizations above, doing so
>> with relatively full understanding of the constraints involved.
>> We would like them to advise us (and, ideally, UTC) on the right
>> set of handling requirements to meet their needs and that of the
>> DNS, so that rules can be established based on their advice,
>> rather than making up rules and then trying to fit either the
>> rules or their advice into each other in a style that would make
>> Procrustean beds feel comfortable and flexible.
> Thanks John, that's useful, glad to see it's not as bad as I thought.
> However I still think that the "default" policy for scripts, until
> some reliable word comes from a reasonable representative, should be
> permissive, unless they are specifically suspected to have problems...

As you understand, it is fairly troublesome to make domain labels
invalidated later. Thus, restrictive approach seems to be a lot
better to me.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list